Language patterns and ATTITUDE*

Monika Bednarek
University of Technology, Sydney

Interpersonal or evaluative meaning has been described in systemic functional

linguistics with the help of appraisal theory (Martin & White 2005), which
distinguishes between different types of evaluation. One sub-system of AP-
PRAISAL is ATTITUDE, which is further divided into APPRECIATION, JUDGEMENT
and AFFECT. This paper uses corpus-linguistic evidence to investigate how far
linguistic patterns support this classification, and whether they can be used as
a ‘diagnostic’ for distinguishing types of ATTITUDE (as has been proposed in
appraisal theory). It argues that two different aspects of APPRAISAL need to be
considered: the kinds of attitudinal lexis (in terms of evaluative standards which
are inscribed in this lexis) and the kinds of attitudinal targets or types of attitu-
dinal assessment, and that this distinction has not been sufficiently considered
in appraisal theory so far. A preliminary classification of attitudinal lexis is also
suggested, and a new sub-category of ATTITUDE proposed (COVERT AFFECT).

1. Introduction

Recently, linguistic approaches are increasingly addressing the question of how

evaluation (or speaker/writer opinion) is expressed in language (see Bednarek
2006 for an overview). One framework that has been established to distinguish
between different types of attitude is appraisal theory (Martin & White 2005). Ap-
praisal theory distinguishes between evaluations relating to intensification (the
sub-system of graduation), and intersubjectivity (different voices) (the sub-sys-
tem of engagement) as well as evaluations that deal with “our feelings, including
emotional reactions, judgements of behaviour and evaluation of things” (Martin
& White 2005: 35) (the sub-system of attitude).
However, both Martin & White (2005: 46) and White (2002) stress that their
“maps of feeling” (Martin & White 2005: 46) for the attitude sub-categories
should be considered hypotheses rather than certainties, and that

Functions of Language 16:2 (2009), 165–192. doi 10.1075/fol.16.2.01bed

issn 0929–998X / e-issn 1569–9765 © John Benjamins Publishing Company
166 Monika Bednarek

the three-way taxonomy [of attitude, i.e. affect, judgement, appreciation]

is proposed as an hypothesis about the organisation of the relevant meanings,
being offered as a point of comparison for those with alternative classifications,
as a resource for those who need something to manage the analysis of evaluation
in discourse, and as a challenge to those concerned with developing appropriate
reasoning (White 2002: 7).

In this paper I would like to take up this challenge and explore the relation of af-
fect to judgement and appreciation with respect to some corpus-linguistic
findings. In particular, I want to discuss the question of the usefulness of patterns
as a diagnostic for distinguishing between the attitude sub-categories of appre-
ciation, judgement and affect.
As a starting point I will use White’s (2004a) distinction between opinion and
emotion:
The distinction is between what, for the sake of brevity and clarity, I will term
‘emotion’ and ‘opinion’. I will use the term ‘emotion’ in essentially its everyday
sense to label attitudinal assessments which are indicated through descriptions of
the emotional reactions or states of human subjects. I will use the term ‘opinion’
in a rather narrower sense than is customary in everyday usage to label positive or
negative assessments […] under which a positive or negative quality is said to be
an inherent property of the phenomenon being evaluated (White 2004a: 232).

Hunston & Sinclair (2000) similarly distinguish between evaluative categories (~

opinion: adjectives indicating an evaluative quality) and evaluating responses (~
emotion: adjectives indicating personal reactions); and Downes (2000) differenti-
ates emotions and evaluations. White (2004a) proposes that opinion can further-
more be divided into appreciation (opinion about aesthetics) and judgement
(opinion about ethics). Additionally I would argue that emotion (affect) can be
sub-divided into overt affect and covert affect. Resources of overt af-
fect directly name an emotional response of Emoters (fear, love, hate), whereas
resources of covert affect only indirectly denote such an emotional response.
This distinction roughly corresponds to what Hunston calls ‘reflective’ vs. ‘consti-
tutive’ affect:
I shall also propose that the distinction between reflective and constitutive ex-
pression of AFFECT is recognised. One of the complexities of this semantic area
is that emotional responses may be indicated as a quality of the responder, as in
Everyone in the school is distressed to hear of this tragedy or as a quality of the thing
evaluated, as in …after the distressing events of 1887… . The first of these is reflec-
tive evaluation (it attributes evaluation to everyone in the school) while the second
is constitutive (it avers an evaluation of the events) (Hunston 2003: 353).1

Examples of covert affect are:

 Language patterns and attitude 167

This is a surprise (something that causes surprise)

This is surprising (causing surprise)
This is a disappointment (something that causes disappointment)
This is disappointing (causing disappointment)
That is my greatest worry (something that causes me to worry)
This is worrying (causing worry)
When considering some corpus evidence below, it will become clear why it may
indeed be interesting to consider covert affect separately. The distinction of
appraisal lexis that I want to apply provisionally is shown in Figure 1.

opinion emotion

judgement appreciation covert affect overt affect

Figure 1.

Furthermore, it seems to me that there are two ways of classifying attitude sub-
categories in appraisal theory:
– according to the type of lexis used
– according to the entity that is evaluated
For example, in He is a brave man for talking out about corruption, but he is too
unstable to make a leader (BNC A3A 382), is this judgement because the ad-
jective brave inscribes a moral/ethic standard or because it is a person and their
behaviour that is being evaluated? In other words, in classifying appraisal, prece-
dence can either be given to the lexis itself: is ‘appreciating’ lexis or ‘judging’ lexis
or ‘affect’ lexis used? or to its context: is a thing/situation appreciated or a person/
behaviour judged? Unfortunately, it is not always made explicit in analyses of ap-
praisal which is the case.2
The question of whether patterns can be used to diagnose appraisal subcat-
egories thus relates to two aspects:3
– Do the specific sub-types of lexis (appreciating, judging, affective) occur only
in certain distinct patterns?
– Are specific patterns used to evaluate a) things/situations, or b) persons/their
behaviour; or c) to attribute emotional responses to Emoters?
In this study I mainly want to address the first question, though I will also briefly
address the second.
168 Monika Bednarek

2. Patterns and types of ATTITUDE lexis

The following patterns (in Table 1) have been classified as expressing either opin-
ion (appreciation or judgement) or emotion by linguistic researchers on evalu-
ation:4

Table 1. Patterns of attitude

Opinion Emotion
Hunston & Sin- evaluative category evaluating response
clair (2000) it + link verb + adj group + finite/ link verb + adj group + to-inf cl
non-finite cl link verb + adj group + that cl
there + link verb + something/any- link verb + adj group + PP
thing/nothing + adj group + about +
noun group/ing-cl
link verb + adj group + to-inf cl
link verb + adj group + that cl
link verb + adj group + PP
Hunston (2003) covert affect overt affect
constitutive af- reflective affect
fect
adj prep n adj prep n
adj to-inf adj finite/non-
v it adj that finite cl
v it adj to-inf It v n adj that
it v-link adj fi- It v n adj to-inf
nite/non-finite cl
Martin & White judgement appreciation affect
(2005: 58–59, see It was judge- Person consider Person feels affect about sth
also White 2002, ment for per- something ap-
Martin 2003) son/of person to preciation It makes person feel affect that p
do that
(For person) Person see
to do that was something as ap-
judgement preciation

Though I have not investigated all of these patterns in detail, I looked at those
patterns that were associated only with one of the four categories (appreciation,
judgement, covert affect and overt affect) and examined occurrences in
the 100 million word British National Corpus (http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/) in
order to find instances where the patterns in fact occurred with other sub-cate-
gories. Table 2 gives a summary of the findings, with a focus on the patterns used
 Language patterns and attitude 169

(rather than the semantic mapping of appraisal or evaluation categories onto

these patterns as in a ‘local grammar’ approach; compare Hunston & Sinclair 2000,
Hunston 2003, Bednarek 2008). In this table, the first column gives the type of
lexis used in the pattern, the second column lists an example sentence and the
third column gives some examples of adjectives used in the pattern.5

Table 2. Patterns of attitude sub-categories

Pattern 1a It + link verb + adjective group + finite/non-finite clause
Type of lexis Example Example lexis
judgement it was reasonable to incur that appropriate, illegal, reasonable
expense.
appreciation It was wonderful talking to you the wonderful
other day.
covert affect It was distressing to hear her talk- interesting, distressing, infuriating,
ing like that. frustrating, annoying, frightening,
boring

Pattern 1b It + link verb + adjective group + of/for + n + non-finite clause

Type of lexis Example
judgement It was silly of/for them to do that
appreciation It was unnecessary of him to say it
covert affect it was touching of Pugh to place a
sticker in the back of the hearse
it was irritating of me to whine
Example lexis
silly, callous, thoughtless, childish,
stupid, sweet, churlish, good, unjust,
brave, wicked, kind, unreasonable,
wrong, unfair
unnecessary
touching, irritating

Pattern 1c v + it + adj + that (presumably: find, consider)

Type of lexis Example Example lexis
appreciation I find it dreadful that a man in his dreadful
position could do something
judgement I find it odd that the position has so odd, strange
changed
covert affect I find it frustrating that … frustrating

Pattern 1d it + v + n + adj + that

Type of lexis Example Example lexis
overt affect It makes me feel happy that they’ve happy, sad, pleased
come
170 Monika Bednarek

Pattern 1e v + it + as + adj/ v + it + adj

Type of lexis Example Example lexis
appreciation They see it as beautiful beautiful, artistic, essential, funny,
important
judgement They see it as inferior inferior, intrusive, sadistic, unfair
covert affect some men seemed proud that they boring
weren’t romantic, viewing it as
boring

Pattern 2 There + link verb + adj group + something/anything/nothing + about/in

+ n group/ing-cl
Type of lexis Example Example lexis
appreciation There is nothing sacrosanct about attractive, beautiful, sacrosanct
this unit of analysis
judgement … there was nothing brave about brave, curious
that.
covert affect But there is something infallibly depressing, disturbing
depressing about Blackpool.

Pattern 3a link verb + adj group + to-inf clause

Type of lexis Example Example lexis
appreciation Horses are pretty to look at pretty
judgement Certain women were appropriate appropriate
to join the trial right, stupid, sensible
You are right to say that
covert affect doing things that are interesting interesting, boring
to do.
overt affect Benjamin had been rather over- overawed, anxious
awed to meet one of the Billington
family

Pattern 3b Link verb + adjective group + that clause

Type of lexis Example Example lexis
overt affect He was very angry that she had amazed, angry, disappointed, envious,
spoken to people about their pri- horrified, pleased, worried
vate affairs
I feel happy that they’ve come
appreciation You are right that he didn’t go to right, correct
the apartment when he said he did
judgement They were lucky that we scored lucky, fortunate, unlucky
when we did.
 Language patterns and attitude 171

Pattern 4 noun group + link verb + adjective group + prepositional phrase (prep
complementation patterns)
Type of lexis6 Example Example lexis
appreciation The pitch is perfect for cricket adequate, convenient, necessary,
perfect, suitable
judgement he is modest about the extent to brilliant, excellent, good, nasty, nice
which it has brought him fame. careful, irresponsible, reckless
bitchy, horrible, insulting, rude, right,
wrong
modest, intelligent, tolerant
famed, infamous, notorious
overt affect The people are impatient for afraid, grateful, sorry, thankful, eager,
change impatient, furious, happy, confident,
The 11-year-olds feel guilty about certain
the homeless
covert affect This is very distressing for Carol distressing, boring
Patterns and examples from Francis (1995), Hunston & Sinclair (2000), Hunston (2003), Martin & White
(2005); additional examples from the BNC

For a summary of the patterns that are used for each of the above identified ap-
praisal lexis types, see Table 3.

Table 3. Summary of patterns and attitude lexis

Pattern/lexis 1a (it) 1b (it) 1c (it) 1d (it) 1e (it) 2 (there) 3a (that) 3b (to) 4 (prep)
judgement ✓ ✓ ✓ – ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
appreciation ✓ ✓ ✓ – ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
covert affect ✓ ✓ ✓ – ✓ ✓ ✓ – ✓
overt affect – – – ✓ – – ✓ ✓ ✓

It becomes obvious from this table that there are most similarities between appre-
ciation and judgement: these lexis categories in fact share all patterns. Covert
affect is still reasonably close to appreciation and judgement, sharing all but
one pattern with them. However, the fact that it cannot be used in pattern 3b,
where appreciation and judgement lexis can be used points to its distinctive-
ness. Finally, overt affect only shares two patterns with all three other lexis
categories (though it shares three patterns with judgement and appreciation)
On the one hand, these corpus findings support the basic distinction between
assessments of opinion and emotion (White 2004a) or evaluative category versus
evaluating response (Hunston & Sinclair 2000). On the other hand, the findings
suggest that it might be worthwhile to consider covert affect on its own terms
rather than including it in either appreciation or affect, even though it is to be
172 Monika Bednarek

seen as more closely associated with opinion than with emotion (in terms of pat-
tern behaviour).
If we examine the semantic mappings used with opinion and emotion patterns
with the help of the category labels proposed by Hunston & Sinclair (2000) we can
see that instances of covert affect can involve labels associated both with opin-
ion (evaluative category) and emotion (evaluating response or overt affect):
(1) Horses [Thing evaluated] are pretty [Evaluative category] to look at
[Restriction]
(2) Benjamin [Evaluator] had been rather overawed [Evaluating Response] to
meet one of the Billington family [Thing evaluated]
(3) This [Thing evaluated] is very distressing [Evaluating Response] for Carol
[Evaluator]

As becomes apparent, example 3 (with covert affect lexis) shares similarities

both with opinion/evaluative categories (the noun group at the beginning of
the pattern realizes the Evaluated Thing rather than the Evaluator) and emotion/
evaluating responses (the adjective indicates an emotional response rather than
an evaluative quality, and an Evaluator is present). This supports a classification
of attitudinal lexis where covert affect is regarded as an intermediate category
between opinion and emotion (Bednarek 2007a). It might be said to constitute a
‘bridge’ between assessments of opinion and emotion, as shown in Figure 2.

‘opinion’ ‘emotion’

appreciation judgement Covert affect Overt affect

Figure 2.

These kinds of assessment also differ in subjectivity and personalization. Assess-

ments of ‘emotion’ indicate personal responses which are very much individual-
ized. In contrast, assessments of ‘opinion’
provide a mode of expression by which this emotional basis can be backgrounded,
obscured or even denied. They shift the focus from the human subject respond-
ing emotionally to the entity being evaluated. Such evaluations are, accordingly,
less explicitly personalizing than ‘emotions’ (White 2004c: 233; see also Fiehler
1990: 49).

Covert affect, I would suggest, lies in-between: it is less personalizing than

overt affect, but more personalizing than appreciation and judgement.
 Language patterns and attitude 173

Furthermore, the findings also suggest that an automatic distinction (using

parsing software) between the attitude sub-categories appreciation and judge-
ment with the help of these very general patterns is not easily possible, because
they share all patterns. However, it might be possible to distinguish automatically
between opinion and overt affect (which seems to be the main distinction in
any case): In those cases where these share patterns, the search program has to
be given a seed list of typical adjectives (see appendix) that occur with these pat-
terns (Hunston & Sinclair 2000: 88). Hunston & Sinclair optimistically propose
that “[t]he parser might then be expected to make some, but not many mistakes”
(Hunston & Sinclair 2000: 88). For further discussion of parsing compare Bednarek
(2007b). Some examples for shared patterns are (examples from Bednarek 2007a
unless otherwise noted):7
Noun group link verb adjective group to-inf clause
Mr Blunkett was wrong to attack the documentary (opinion)
He was proud to be a cop (emotion)
noun group link verb adjective group that clause
They were lucky that we scored when we did (opinion) (Hunston & Sinclair
2000)
I am glad that he didn’t get away with it (emotion)
Noun group link verb adjective group prepositional group
He is guilty of a dreadful lapse of professionalism (opinion)
he is frightened of being sued over the Lambgate Scandal (emotion) (BNC)

As far as the classification of lexis is concerned, it is also often easier to make only
a simple distinction between opinion and affect, rather than trying to classify
lexis as indicating appreciation or judgement. While in some cases it may be
easy to categorise lexis as making an appeal to moral/ethical standards (judging
lexis, e.g. honest, truthful, intelligent, clever) or as making an appeal to aesthetic
standards (appreciating lexis, e.g. beautiful, ugly, elegant, irregular), in other cases
this is much more difficult. A number of evaluative standards are not easily classi-
fied in my view as deriving from aesthetic or ethical standards or even necessarily
as good-bad (see also Bednarek 2006: 32–33, 41–43). These are:
important–unimportant evaluation in terms of significance
genuine–fake evaluation in terms of genuineness and truth
expected–unexpected evaluation in terms of expectedness
possible–not possible evaluation in terms of possibility
necessary–not necessary evaluation in terms of necessity
174 Monika Bednarek

Such evaluations have a number of discourse functions that need to be researched

in more detail, e.g. importance, genuineness and expectedness can function as
intensifiers, but also to invoke positive/negative evaluation (Bednarek 2006). Very
general evaluative adjectives such as good, bad, great while clearly inscribing posi-
tive/negative evaluation are also difficult to classify in terms of a specific evalua-
tive (aesthetic or ethical) standard: rather, it seems to me that these adjectives are
semantically ‘underspecified’ as far as a precise dimension of evaluation is con-
cerned (compare also Malrieu 1999: 132).
To recapitulate, it might be very difficult if not impossible to distinguish auto-
matically between appreciation and judgement lexis with the help of a pattern-
based approach. But what if the kind of patterns that are proposed by Hunston and
her colleagues are simply too general, and what if we need to look at the kind of
verbs that can fill the v-link slot? Might the patterns proposed by Martin & White
(2005) in fact be more helpful as a diagnostic? As will be recalled, these involve
specific verbs in certain patterns: be, consider/see, feel and make feel (compare Ta-
ble 1 above). These seem more like lexical phrases than patterns: rather than the
‘true’ pattern v-link adj about, the pattern is, for example, feel adj about.
In fact, Table 2 above suggests that the affect patterns (person feels affect
about something/that; it makes person feel affect that) seem to be relatively good
tools for diagnosing (one type of) overt affect. Here is a more detailed analysis
of these patterns, starting with occurrences for I feel adj about/that in the BNC:8
I feel adj about:
– confident: confident
– good/bad: good (3 occurrences), better (4 occ.), great, bad (3 occ.), all right,
terrible, rotten
– other emotion: confused, disgusted, guilty (4 occ.), curious, sentimental, an-
gry, fearful, heartbroken, optimistic (2 occ.), comfortable, hesitant, embarrassed,
funny, uneasy, happy, sad
– other: different
The pattern person feels adj about with a first person singular pronoun (and in the
present tense) occurs most often with adjectives that directly denote an emotional
response (angry, fearful) or those that denote an emotional response when col-
locating with the verb feel (good, bad). Only in one example does the adjective not
relate to an emotional state (different), whereas the adjective confident is on the
border of denoting affect (see below) — although different could in fact mean
‘different emotional state’. But what about the variation of this pattern where the
adjective is followed by a that-clause? Here are the adjective occurrences in the
BNC for I feel adj that:
 Language patterns and attitude 175

I feel adj that:

– ‘true’ emotion: angry (2 occ.), annoyed, bitter, grateful, irritated, proud (2 occ.),
sad (2 occ.), sorry, surprised
– confidence: certain (3 occ.), confident (8 occ.), convinced, assured, sure (41
occ.)
In the first person and present tense, this pattern occurs most often with (epistem-
ic) adjectives (in particular sure) that indicate the confidence of the speaker re-
garding the content of the following proposition, and it is debatable whether such
adjectives actually refer to emotional responses (i.e. affect) rather than non-af-
fective mental states. However, it might perhaps be possible to include these as
being situated on the borders of affect, and being somehow related to the affect
sub-category of security: confidence. Alternatively, utterances like I feel confident/
certain/convinced (etc) that are analysable as grammatical metaphors of modality
in Halliday & Matthiessen’s (2004) terms, which takes us well away from affect.
Moving on to the second affect pattern — it makes person feel affect that
— Table 4 gives an overview of the occurrences of this pattern in the BNC and the
adjectives with which it is used:

Table 4. An affect pattern with make feel

it makes (personal pronoun) feel adj group that
it makes me feel (58 occ.) it makes me feel adj group that 1: pleased
it makes you feel (55 occ.) it makes you feel adj group that 0
it makes him feel (3 occ.) it makes him feel adj group that 0
it makes her feel (4 occ.) it makes her feel adj group that 0
it makes us feel (8 occ.) it makes us feel adj group that 0
it makes them feel (18 occ.) it makes them feel adj group that 0

In fact, this pattern (with personal pronouns and in the present tense) hardly oc-
curs at all in the BNC — there is only one instance of the pattern it makes me
feel adj group that. Arguably, in the one case in which it occurs it does involve
an affect adjective (pleased), but the data is far too sparse to make any general
statements. Thus, while the pattern Person feels affect about/that is a relatively
good diagnostic for identifying affective adjectives (but also adjectives indicating
‘confidence’), the pattern it makes person feel affect that is far too infrequent to
provide any real diagnostic help.
As becomes apparent from Table 2 above, Martin & White’s patterns for ap-
preciation (person see something as appreciation/person consider something
appreciation) and for judgement (it was judgement for person/of person to
176 Monika Bednarek

do that) do occur with other types of lexis. However, Table 2 only tells us what
is possible, but not what is typical. In other words: even if it is possible that these
patterns occur with other types of lexis, the question is whether they typically
(frequently) do so.
Let us therefore examine the judgement pattern in more detail. Looking at
the examples from the BNC for It was adj of X to we can group the occurring ad-
jectives in a number of ad-hoc categories:
It was adj of X to
– stupidity [foolish (3 occ.), stupid (3 occ.), silly (2 occ.), unwise, unreasonable,
rash]
– intelligence [clever (2 occ.), shrewd, intelligent]
– good/right [kind (13 occ.), good (11 occ.), sweet (4 occ.), nice (4 occ.), decent,
lovely]
– bad/wrong [wrong (6 occ.), unfair (2 occ.), rotten, wicked, unkind, monstrous,
unjust]
– character-related [thoughtless (2 occ.), careless (2 occ.), insensitive, childish,
churlish, callous, arrogant, generous]
– bravery [brave (2 occ.), daring]
– normality [typical (3 occ.)]
– covert affect [touching, irritating]
– necessity [unnecessary]
This pattern seems to occur mostly with judgement lexis (mainly capacity and
propriety, with some tenacity and normality), even if some non-judgement lexis
occurs (covert affect adjectives and the adjective unnecessary which is difficult
to classify). The pattern might consequently still be helpful in identifying judge-
ment lexis, even if it does occur with non-judgement lexis.
Now to one of the appreciation patterns, and the occurrences in the BNC for
I consider it adj group. Three main sub-patterns suggest themselves:
I consider it adj group (2 occ.)
– neither profound nor convincing
– necessary
I consider it adj group to (7 occ.)
– ‘positive’: safe (‘danger’), opportune (‘suitable’), legitimate
– ‘negative’: dangerous (‘danger’), unadvisable (‘suitable’), unrealistic
– necessary
I consider it adj group that (3 occ.)
– importance: vital, most important, essential
 Language patterns and attitude 177

Unfortunately, this pattern does not occur frequently enough to make safe general
statements, but it looks like it is associated with the notions of ‘importance’, ‘neces-
sity’, ‘danger’ and ‘suitability’, and that it can involve not only appreciation lexis
but also judgement lexis (e.g. legitimate).
A related potential appreciation pattern (with find rather than consider),
which occurs more often, is Person find something appreciation. As with I con-
sider it x we can identify three sub-patterns: I find it x, I find it x to-inf clause, and
I find it x that clause. In fact the first pattern (I find it x), which is similar to the
ones proposed by Martin & White (2005) (Person see something as appreciation/
Person consider something appreciation) is the most infrequent, occurring only 4
times in the BNC, and only with covert affect lexis:
I find it adj group (4 occ.)
– covert affect [less than thrilling, much too depressing, frustrating, quite tiring]
More frequently the pattern occurs with a that-clause following the adjective:
I find it adj that y (45 occ.)
– unexpected/extraordinary/unbelievable [strange (7 occ.), curious, surprising
(5 occ.), amazing (2 occ.), extraordinary (3 occ.), astonishing, odd, puzzling,
incredible (2 occ.), unbelievable, inconceivable (3 occ.), unthinkable]
– covert affect [interesting, sad (4 occ.), appalling, disturbing, galling, fright-
ening, refreshing]
– judgement [dreadful, disgraceful, indefensible, shameful]
– importance [important]
The pattern thus occurs most frequently with ‘unexpectedness’ lexis (which is dif-
ficult to classify — in appraisal terms, it is either appreciation: reaction: impact
or judgement: normality but see above page 173), but is also fairly frequently
used with covert affect and judgement.9 Most often, the pattern is used to
express evaluations of unexpectedness, extraordinariness and ‘unbelievability’.
Finally, the pattern occurs most frequently in the BNC with a to-infinitive
clause :
I find it adj to y (172 occ.)
– difficulty/non-difficulty [easier (6 occ.), easiest, easy (4 occ.), difficult (57 occ.),
hard (64 occ.), harder (2 occ.), impossible (14 occ.), convenient (3 occ.) helpful
(4 occ.), useful (3 occ.)]
– covert affect [boring, embarrassing, fascinating, frustrating, insulting, inter-
esting, stimulating]
– judgement [arrogant, best/better (2 occ.), intolerable, wise]
– necessity [necessary]
178 Monika Bednarek

Here the pattern involves most often appreciation lexis (if difficulty/non-difficulty
are classified as composition: complexity, following e.g. Forey & Hood 2006), fol-
lowed by judgement lexis and covert affect (and necessity). However, if we take
the analysis one step further and look at the most frequent adjectives in the pattern I
find it adj to (difficult, hard, impossible), a more detailed kind of evaluation emerges:
I find it difficult to [f > 2]
– accept (4 occ.)
– believe (9 occ.)
– see (3 occ.)
– understand (7 occ.)
I find it hard to [f > 2]
– believe (28 occ.)
– imagine (5 occ.)
– see (3 occ.)
– understand (3 occ.)
I find it impossible to [f =/> 2]
– accept (2 occ.)
– believe (3 occ.)
– comprehend (2 occ.)
These three very frequent adjectives mostly occur in this pattern with verbs that
indicate a mental process of accepting, understanding, comprehending or believ-
ing and often project a clause. It seems plausible to argue that the whole pattern I
find it difficult/hard/impossible to believe/understand p etc. expresses an evaluation
of the projected clause, in addition to the embedded evaluation of the post-adjec-
tive to-clause (to believe/understand p). In terms of Bednarek’s (2006) framework
these patterns seem to work to evaluate along the parameter of incomprehensibil-
ity. With the pattern I find it difficult/hard/impossible to believe that p this may in
turn indicate engagement, implying that the projected proposition is probably
untrue (paraphrasable as ‘I don’t think that p’), and therefore analysable as a gram-
matical metaphor of modality, like I feel certain (etc) that above, with different
degrees of intensity or graduation depending on the adjective. Compare the fol-
lowing examples (from the BNC):
(4) She would be fifty-three or four now and I find it difficult to believe that any
woman who had had three children wouldn’t show some curiosity about
what happened to them once the glamour of life had worn a bit thin.
(5) I find it difficult to believe that a male Oscar would let a female spawn on her
own — unless she was so much larger than him that he dare not go near.
 Language patterns and attitude 179

(6) I find it difficult to believe that intervention is of necessity harmful.

(7) I find it difficult to believe that we can improve on trying to establish
competitive markets within the framework of a rule of law.
(8) I find it difficult to believe that a bank like the NatWest can’t offer any more
appropriate type of account than this “small business account”
(9) However, given that such maps exist, I find it hard to believe that distances
could be estimated by a method analogous to using Pythagoras’ theorem.
(10) I find it hard to believe that the answer lies in reciprocity or disguised
selfishness in any simple sense.
(11) I find it hard to believe that so fundamental a process is not governed by
principles just as elegant and universal as those uncovered in relation to
molecular genetics.
(12) I have known Alain all his life and I find it impossible to believe that he would
commit suicide.
(13) I find it impossible to believe that the Director would contemplate sending an
official to interview a defendant during his trial, even if there were anything
to be gained from such a course, which is hard to see, given that his answers
would not be admissible.

As we move further and further down in terms of delicacy, distinct evaluative

functions of specific patterns thus emerge.
In terms of the diagnostic potential of the more specific patterns proposed
by Martin & White (2005), it must be said that such patterns only partly work to
identify specific types of attitude lexis, with the affect pattern seeming most
promising. More delicate patterns are associated with specific evaluative func-
tions. However, because of their delicacy, these may be relatively useless for the
development of automated parsing software. But it is very possible that “a more
delicate exploration of frames will help interrogate the sub-categorisation of affect,
judgement and appreciation” (Martin & White 2005: 59, bold face in original).
As suggested above, these seem more like lexical phrases than patterns: whereas a
‘true’ pattern is more general and does not usually involve particular lexical items
(instead there are elements such as v-link adj), these phrases incorporate specific
lexical verbs (e.g. feel adj about). Some of these phrases also involve a variety of
lexical verbs that are part of the same semantic subset (e.g. consider/find it adj
that), analysable perhaps in terms of semantic preference (i.e. a tendency of words
to co-occur with words from a specific semantic-pragmatic subset). In terms of
specificity, these different phrases can be ordered as follows:
180 Monika Bednarek

more general
link verb adj group that
appreciation verb (e.g. consider/find) it adj group that
feel adj group that
more specific

3. Patterns and attitudinal targets

One argument against my claim above that it is often difficult to distinguish ap-
preciation from judgement lexis might be that it is simply necessary to look
at the context, i.e. the appraised entity (or attitudinal target) in order to decide
whether appreciation or judgement is concerned. Thus:
an important man (judgement: capacity)
an important issue (appreciation: valuation)

But it must be clear that this is no longer purely a classification of appraisal de-
pendent on attitudinal lexis, but rather a classification of appraisal dependent on
the attitudinal target. Similarly, Martin & White identify a skilful player as judge-
ment but a skilful innings as appreciation (Martin & White 2005: 59), although
they also discuss these examples as “hybrid realisations” (Martin & White 2005: 61)
and with respect to invoked attitude (Martin & White 2005: 67–68).
I would instead suggest classifying the second example as judging lexis which
is used to appreciate. That is, what we need for appraisal analysis is a classifica-
tion of attitudinal lexis in terms of evaluative standards which are inscribed in this
lexis, which constitutes our first starting point for the analysis of attitude. But we
also need a classification of attitudinal targets or types of attitudinal assessment
as the second starting point for the analysis of attitude. Then we can talk about
‘judging’ lexis used to appreciate things, ‘importance’ lexis used to judge people or
used to appreciate things, ‘appreciating’ lexis used to judge behaviour, ‘affective’
lexis used to appreciate situations etc. For example:
– an important politician (‘importance’ lexis used to judge) — an important issue
(‘importance’ lexis used to appreciate)
– his pity was genuine (‘genuineness’ lexis used to appreciate, but also metonym-
ically to judge the Emoter) — it was a fake CV (‘genuineness’ lexis used to
appreciate)
– his behaviour was typical (‘expectedness’ lexis used to judge) — the bad weath-
er was to be expected (‘expectedness’ lexis used to appreciate)
 Language patterns and attitude 181

– his behaviour was unnecessary (‘necessity’ lexis used to judge) — the question
was unnecessary (‘necessity’ lexis used to appreciate, but also metonymically to
judge the ‘asker’ of the question)
This may have a particular rhetorical effect. Similarly, compare the following ex-
ample from Eggins & Slade (1997, emphasis mine):
(14) Jo We had … there was an affair
A classic
A classic was here.
There was an affair going on between the cook and this other girl, you know

In this example, appreciating lexis (classic) is used to evaluate human behaviour

(judgement), creating a “rhetorical ploy where Appreciation (rather than the
more explicit Judgement) is used with the desired effect that it is immediately evi-
dent that gossip is about to take place” (Eggins & Slade 1997: 289).
A very preliminary classification of attitudinal (opinion and emotion) lexis
could look as visualized in Table 5 (combining suggestions by Martin & White
2005 and Bednarek 2004, 2006):

Table 5. A classification of attitudinal lexis

Emotion Lexis
affect type Examples
overt affect covert affect
un/happiness happy, sad saddening
in/security uneasy, confident reassuring
dis/inclination desire, don’t want tempting
dis/satisfaction excited, bored with exciting, boring
surprise pleasantly surprised, shocked surprising

Opinion Lexis
Opinion type
good/bad
important/unimportant
genuine/fake
expected/unexpected
possible/not possible
necessary/not necessary
Examples
aesthetics beautiful, splendid, ugly
ethics honest, miserly, stupid
general good, bad, great
… …
significant, key, vital
real, true, artificial
new, typical, normal
possible
necessary
182 Monika Bednarek

Of course, it might not always be necessary to look at both of these aspects of

appraisal. That is, in cases where appreciating lexis is used to appreciate things/
situations, where affective lexis is used to attribute emotional responses to Emot-
ers, and where judging lexis is used to judge people and their behaviour, the ap-
praisal is simply and straightforwardly analysable as appreciation, affect and
judgement. But to consider both aspects of appraisal systematically allows us to
explain rhetorical mechanisms and semantic change.
For example, we can describe the distinct rhetorical flavour of utterances like
It was beautiful of you to help out those street kids the way you did (White 2002: 7)
by pointing out that appreciating lexis (beautiful) occurs in a judgement frame
that is normally associated with judging lexis, resulting in a collocational clash
and a particular flavour of appraisal meaning (compare also Hunston & Francis’s
2000 comments on patterns and semantic prosody).
This also allows us to investigate mechanisms of semantic change. For exam-
ple, two meanings of cool are (from OALD):
Cool, used by speakers to show
1. that they admire or approve of something because it is fashionable, attractive
and often different: It’s a cool movie.
2. that they approve of something or agree to a suggestion: I was surprised that
she got the job, but I’m cool with it

Here we have an example (2) where opinion (appreciating?) lexis is used in an

overt affect pattern (adj with n see Hunston 2003: 354), resulting in a change of
meaning for cool. However, cool is not turned into affective lexis as such; I would
argue that it does not (yet) denote an emotional response as such, because it can-
not occur in all affect patterns with this affective meaning (compare: ?I feel cool,
?It makes me feel cool that…).

We can see how this process of collocational clash can change the meaning
of lexis (compare also Stubbs 1995, Channell 2000 on collocation and meaning
change), if we contrast surprise with pity:
surprise
– emotional response (surprise)
– something that is surprising: It is a surprise that, it comes as a surprise that…
pity
– emotional response (pity)
– evaluative reaction (‘unfortunate’) It is a pity that …
With (the affective noun) pity the fact that it occurs in a pattern that is normally
associated with opinion rather than emotion (nouns denoting emotion are usually
 Language patterns and attitude 183

non-count) has resulted in the fact that its meaning has changed. Naturally, such
examples are not classified as covert affect, because there is no implication of
the emotion of pity. In contrast, It is a surprise that still does convey emotion (co-
vert affect).
It seems that such attitudinal pattern clashes can have different results, such
as:
– ‘incorrect’, ‘ungrammatical’ or ‘questionable’ usage: for example, White argues
that it is not possible to say “It was elegant of you to wear that outfit” (White
2002: 7), i.e. use appreciating lexis in this judgement pattern.
– ‘poetic’, ‘ironic’ or other rhetorical effect: It was beautiful of you to…
– opinion lexis habitually used to indicate emotional response in a certain pat-
tern (cool with)
– emotion lexis turned into opinion lexis (it is a pity that)
A crucial question in this respect is whether meaning resides in the word or in the
phrase, or in the word in the phrase. So rather than discussing words such as cool
or beautiful in terms of their different meaning potentials, it would also be possible
to focus on the meaning of larger phrases such as BE cool with or it BE beautiful of
x to. This is in fact the approach that is currently taken in many corpus approaches
(for a discussion see Hunston & Francis 2000).
Finally, an area that remains for future research is the question of whether spe-
cific patterns are used to evaluate a) things/situations, and b) persons/their behav-
iour; and c) attribute emotional responses to Emoters. While Bednarek (2007b)
gives an overview of affect patterns, no attempt is made to investigate if these
can be used for appreciation or judgement. As far as the patterns identified
above (see Table 2) are concerned, my impression is that there is no one-to-one
correspondence between pattern and attitudinal target either:
1a: used to evaluate things/behaviour/actions
1b: used to evaluate behaviour
1c: used to evaluate behaviour or situations
1d: used to indicate emotional responses of Emoters to Triggers
1e: used to evaluate things
2: used to evaluate things or actions
3a: used to evaluate things or people, behaviour in terms of opinion or emotion;
used to indicate emotional responses of Emoters to Triggers
3b: used to indicate emotional responses of Emoters to Triggers; used to evaluate
someone’s statements, used to evaluate behaviour
184 Monika Bednarek

4: used to evaluate things, behaviour, linguistic actions, people; used to indicate

emotional responses of Emoters to Triggers; used to evaluate things in terms
of caused emotional response
However, it was beyond the scope of this study to analyse all examples of these
patterns in terms of their attitudinal targets (often necessitating a look at the wider
context, especially with patterns involving it), which would be necessary to answer
this question on the basis of more valid data rather than a general impression
based on a somewhat superficial glance at some examples. Further, a categori-
sation of Triggers itself requires some lexical semantic theory that would tell us
about the kind of qualities or attributes that different entities can be linked with.

4. Conclusion

In this paper I have suggested that it is sometimes worthwhile looking into two
aspects of appraisal: the type of attitudinal lexis involved (what kinds of evalua-
tive standards are inscribed in lexis) and the type of attitudinal target or attitudi-
nal assessment going on. I have also investigated the question in how far patterns
can help the automatic identification of sub-categories of attitude lexis, with the
conclusion that it might be possible to distinguish between opinion and overt
affect, but not to differentiate appreciation from judgement.
The studies reported on in this paper are to be seen as pilot studies with a pro-
posal for other corpus researchers to continue the investigation of affect patterns
more thoroughly (cf. Radighieri 2006, and Römer 2008 on general pattern ap-
proaches to evaluation outside appraisal theory), particularly the question wheth-
er specific patterns are used for different types of attitudinal assessment (involving
certain attitudinal targets).
I have furthermore suggested classifying attitudinal lexis first, and then look-
ing at the pattern in which it is used, and what the effect of this usage is. This is
not to deny the importance of the pattern as meaning-making (Hunston 2003); in
fact it actually helps us to explore this aspect of meaning creation in terms of ap-
praisal further. That is, rather than giving precedence to either lexis or pattern, it
might sometimes be necessary to discuss both aspects of attitudinal appraisal.
Ambiguities may still arise in the classification of attitudinal lexis, since “cat-
egories of semantic analysis cannot be specified in such clear-cut terms as can
grammatical categories” (Eggins & Slade 1997: 139–140). Perhaps the very fine
distinctions that are made by appraisal theory (e.g. affect: un/happiness, in/se-
curity etc; appreciation: reaction: impact, reaction: quality, composition: bal-
ance, composition: complexity etc; judgement: normality, capacity, tenacity etc)
 Language patterns and attitude 185

can be included in less specific attitudinal meanings in a first step, following the
advice given by Macken-Horarik: “If our analysis is to be sensitive to the shap-
ing force of logogenesis, it cannot (should not) be too dense or overdetermining”
(Macken-Horarik 2003: 318). Similarly, types of attitudinal targets or attitudinal
assessments might not be clearly distinguished from each other and a taxonomy
of such attitude types is clearly needed.

Received 30 August 2006.

Revised version 26 November 2007.

Notes

* The research reported on in this article was funded by the German Research Council (DFG),
which was greatly appreciated. I am also grateful to Jim Martin for his helpful comments on a
previous version of this paper as well as Geoff Thompson and two anonymous reviewers for
their useful suggestions.

1. But note that the distinction between constitutive and reflective affect cuts across attribu-
tion and averral (Bednarek 2007a), and that Hunston somewhat mistakenly assumes that ap-
praisal theory “treats both of these as equivalent” (Hunston 2003: 353). In fact, White (2001)
makes a difference between structures such as a deeply disturbing moustache and I am disturbed
by your moustache, classifying the former as appreciation: reaction and the latter as affect,
arguing that:
Crucial here is the fact that the emotional reaction (depress, bore etc) has been detached
from any human experiencer of the emotion and been attached to the evaluated entity as if
it were some property which the entity objectively and intrinsically possesses. To say that
‘the building bores me’ (AFFECT) is to offer an individualised evaluation which depends
entirely on my own, singular state of mind or emotional disposition. It says as much about
me, the evaluator, as it does about the building. To say that ‘the building is boring’ (AP-
PRECIATION) is to offer an evaluation of a different order. It is to attribute to the building a
property which is represented as being a fixed characteristic of that building, a quality which
operates generally and which is not dependent on an individual or variable state of mind or
emotional disposition. (White 2001: 3)

2. While usually defining appraisal as “founded on ‘evaluative’ lexis” (Martin 2000: 143) or as
“a lexis-oriented classification” (Martin & White 2005: 46) and, for example, talking about “reac-
tion lexis” (Eggins & Slade 1997: 127), appraisal theory also notes that whole clauses can realize
appraisal (e.g. Eggins & Slade 1997: 126) and in some cases classifies examples according to the
modified entity. Thus, a skilful player (judgement) but a skilful innings (appreciation) (Martin
& White 2005: 59). As White phrases it, words are classified as ‘operating as’ appreciation or
judgement depending on the pattern:
Similarly when terms such as ‘beautiful’ operate as Appreciation, the ‘It was X of Y to…’
frame is not available (‘It was beautiful of you to wear your hair like that.’), but when they
operate as Judgement it is available (‘It was beautiful of you to help out those street kids the
way you did.’). (White 2002: 7)
186 Monika Bednarek

3. A third question is whether or not we can use patterns for classifying lexis as such: ie given
the lexical items boring, or frustrating the analyst uses his/her intuition to consider if they can
occur in the judgement pattern It was x of/for them to do that or if they can occur in the ap-
preciation pattern I consider it x. On the basis of this decision, the item is classified as indicat-
ing judgement or (in this case) appreciation. This intuition-based usage of patterns will be
disregarded here where the focus is on the actual discourse usage of these patterns. Suffice it to
say that certain lexical items can be used with different meanings (and hence in different pat-
terns) (e.g. sad).

4. This is a simplified summary of the patterns recognized by these researchers (e.g. including
all adj + preposition patterns in one category). Only adjective patterns are listed, and patterns
with graded adjectives, pseudo clefts and simple attributive (adj N) or predicative patterns are
disregarded for now (but see endnote 7). For a computational linguistic investigation into ap-
praisal see Taboada & Grieve (2004), who use the patterns I was (affect), he was (judge-
ment) and it was (appreciation), simplifying and generalizing from the patterns in Martin
(2003). Hunston (2003) also points out FrameNet’s (http://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/) different
frames, noting that attitude sub-categories

correspond very roughly to the following FrameNet frames: Emotion_active or Emotion

directed (affect); Morality evaluation, Social behaviour evaluation and Social interaction
evaluation (judgement); Quality evaluation (appreciation). The correspondences are not
exact, however. (Hunston 2003: 352)

Hunston does not seem to distinguish between appreciation, affect and judgement
lexis when it is used in the same pattern (Hunston 2003: 353). While Bednarek (2006) agrees
with Hunston that there are cases where these differences in meaning are secondary, and pro-
poses that all can be treated as evaluations of emotivity (good/bad evaluation), the same re-
search (Bednarek 2004) also leads to the conclusion that it may be useful at times to differenti-
ate between different types of evaluated entity (different types of attitudinal assessment). For
example, the force of the evaluative meaning of fail seems to depend on whether a human or a
non-human agent is involved. In other words, fail is often more “attitudinally saturated” (White
2004b) where human beings are concerned as agents. Compare also Channell’s (2000) observa-
tion for fat, namely that its evaluative force depends “on the referent to which the attribute is
being applied” (Channell 2000: 43). In addition, White (2004a) notes that

it may be important to take account of the target of the attitudinal assessment — most no-
tably whether that target is or is not a human actor. I suggested that ‘crisis’ had a rather
different evaluative quality because, as an assessment, it was directed at some generalized
situation, rather than at a human actor. This distinction has some obvious consequences for
evaluative positioning and rhetorical effect. We can expect assessments of humans to typi-
cally put more at stake than assessments of natural objects or generalized situations (White
2004a: 233–234).

Furthermore, research in appraisal has shown that different text types are distinguished by
type of attitude (e.g. Rothery & Stenglin 2000, Martin & Rose 2003), and suggests that there
are “differences in attitudinal profiles (different patterns of occurrence of attitudinal subtypes)
by which individual texts or grouping of texts (for example those representing a given register
or genre) can be contrasted” (White 2002: 24). The conclusion is that it depends on the purpose
of the analysis how detailed it needs to be. In some cases, it might be sufficient to work with
 Language patterns and attitude 187

generalized categories (good/bad evaluation or emotivity), because this facilitates the analysis
and limits the number of problematic categorizations (Bednarek 2006) or to group together
judgement and appreciation (e.g. Martin & Rose 2003: 37); but in other cases it might be
necessary to make use of the very detailed descriptions that the sub-categorization of appraisal
theory provides. I would argue that the two approaches offer different, but equally valid perspec-
tives on evaluative meaning.

5. In this table I classify necessary as appreciation: valuation and odd, strange, curious etc as
judgement: normality. Evaluations of (un)expectedness are difficult to classify within appraisal
theory: Normality (‘how special’) is a judgement subcategory (Martin & White 2005: 53), but
Painter (2003: 203) notes strange (appraising a man) as an example of appreciation. See also
below (pages 10–11).

6. A distinct usage of this pattern is an evaluation “about what someone says about a person or
situation” (Hunston & Sinclair 2000: 96), e.g. Davies was insulting about the play.

7. Taking into account patterns with graded adjectives and attributive as well as predicative pat-
terns might mean that more patterns can be found that are used both for assessments of opinion
and for assessments of emotion (examples from Bednarek 2007a unless otherwise noted):

noun group link verb adjective group with too to inf clause
she was too stupid to know any better. (opinion) (BNC)
One witness was too scared to give his name (emotion)

noun group link verb adjective group

The woman is brilliant (opinion)
He was shocked (emotion)

adjective + noun group

beautiful white scented blooms (opinion) (Hunston & Sinclair 2000: 94)
frightened children (emotion) (BNC)

8. In this analysis and all other pattern analyses only certain variations of the patterns are con-
sidered, e.g. first person present tense (I feel, it makes me feel), first person present tense + it (I
find it, I consider it) etc. Furthermore, sometimes only patterns with adjectives were considered
(I feel adj that) rather than adjective groups involving pre-modifications (I feel very adj that).
This becomes clear by the description of the patterns analysed (e.g. adj means ‘adjective’ versus
adj group which includes pre-modifications of adjectives).

9. Some of the ‘unexpected’ lexis can be doubly classified as also indicating covert affect,
implying the Emoter’s surprise.

References

Bednarek, Monika. 2004. Evaluating the world: The evaluative style of British broadsheet and
tabloid publications. Augsburg: Universität Augsburg PhD dissertation. (Extracts available
on demand to author)
188 Monika Bednarek

Bednarek, Monika. 2006. Evaluation in media discourse. Analysis of a newspaper corpus (Re-
search in Corpus and Discourse ). London: Continuum.
Bednarek, Monika. 2007a. Local grammar and register variation: explorations in broadsheet and
tabloid newspaper discourse. ELR Journal 1 (1). http://ejournals.org.uk/ELR/article/2007/1
(4 September, 2007).
Bednarek, Monika. 2007b. Affect in English: A corpus-based systemic-functional investigation of
emotion talk. Augsburg: Universität Augsburg Habilitationsschrift.
Bednarek, Monika. 2008. Emotion talk across corpora. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Mac-
millan.
Channell, Joanna. 2000. Corpus-based analysis of evaluative lexis. In Susan Hunston & Geoff
Thompson (eds.), 38–55.
Eggins, Suzanne & Diana Slade. 1997. Analysing casual conversation. London: Cassell.
Forey, Gail & Sue Hood. 2006. Exploring the dynamic flow of emotions in customer call centre
communication. Paper presented at ALLE (Applied Linguistics and Language in Educa-
tion) conference 21 September 2006. Macquarie University, Sydney.
Francis, Gill. 1995. Corpus-driven grammar and its relevance to the learning of English in a
cross-cultural situation. Manuscript. University of Birmingham.
Halliday, M.A.K. & Christian Matthiessen. 2004. An introduction to functional grammar. Third,
revised edn. London: Arnold.
Hunston, Susan. 2003. Frame, phrase or function: A comparison of frame semantics and local
grammars. In Dawn Archer, Paul Rayson, Andrew Wilson & Tony McEnery (eds.), Corpus
Linguistics 2003 (Technical Papers 16), 342–358. University of Lancaster: University Centre
for Computer Corpus Research on Language.
Hunston, Susan & Gill Francis. 2000. Pattern grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Hunston, Susan and John Sinclair. 2000. A local grammar of evaluation. In Susan Hunston &
Geoff Thompson (eds.), 74–101.
Hunston, Susan & Geoff Thompson. 2000. (eds.) Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the
construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Malrieu, Jean-Pierre. 1999. Evaluative semantics. Cognition, language and ideology. London:
Routledge.
Martin, J. R. 2000. Beyond exchange: appraisal systems in English. In Susan Hunston & Geoff
Thompson (eds.), 142–175.
Martin, J. R. 2003. Introduction. Text 23 (2). 171–181.
Martin, J. R. & David Rose. 2003. Working with discourse. Meaning beyond the clause. London:
Continuum.
Martin, J. R. & Peter R.R. White. 2005. The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Hound-
mills: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Radighieri, Sara. 2006. Arts in the news: Evaluative language use in the ‘arts review’. Corpus
Linguistics 2005. http://www.corpus.bham.ac.uk/PCLC (4 September, 2007). (ISSN 1747–
9398)
Römer, Ute. 2008. Identification impossible? A corpus approach to realisations of evaluative
meaning in academic writing. Functions of Language 15(1). 115–130.
Rothery, Joan & Maree Stenglin. 2000. Interpreting literature: the role of APPRAISAL. In Len
Unsworth (ed.), Researching language in schools and functional linguistic perspectives, 222–
244. London: Cassell.
Taboada, Maite & Jack Grieve. 2004. Analyzing appraisal automatically. Exploring Attitude and
Affect in Text: Theories and Applications (AAAI).
 Language patterns and attitude 189

Stubbs, Michael. 1995. Collocations and semantic profiles: on the cause of the trouble with
quantitative studies. http://www.uni-trier.de/uni/fb2/anglistik/Projekte/stubbs/cause.htm
(4 September, 2007). (Originally published in Functions of Language 2 (1). 23–55.)
White, Peter R.R. 2001. Attitude/appreciation. Manuscript. http://www.grammatics.com/ap-
praisal (3 January, 2005).
White, Peter R.R. 2002. Appraisal. In Jef Verschueren et al. (eds.). Handbook of pragmatics, 1–27.
Amsterdam: Benjamins.
White, Peter R.R. 2004a. Subjectivity, evaluation and point of view in media discourse. In Caro-
line Coffin (ed.), Applying English grammar: Functional and corpus approaches, 229–246.
London: Arnold.
White, Peter R.R. 2004b. Attitudinal meaning and inference — semantic prosodies in text and
inter-text. Paper presented in the English Language Research Seminar. University of Bir-
mingham, 17 February, 2004.

OALD = Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary. 7th edition. Oxford: OUP. (used on CD-ROM:
Oxford advanced learner’s compass)

Appendix

Some adjectives (also involving some -ing/-ed participles) to be included in a potential seed list
of overt affect adjectives:

angst-ridden passionate addlepated rancorous

amused prepared agitated ratty
buoyant psyched up alarmed riled
carried away (get/be) stirred up apprehensive seething
cheerful uptight baffled sore
cheery wholehearted bewildered strung up
chipper willing bewildered sulky
chirpy affronted bothered teed off
content aggrieved concerned testy
contented agonised disconcerted tetchy
delighted anguished distraught ticked off
delirious blue disturbed vengeful
ecstatic broken-hearted excited vexed
elated browned-off fearful vindictive
enraptured bruised flummoxed waspish
enthused burdened flustered wrathful
euphoric chagrined frantic abashed
exhilarated cheesed off fraught apologetic
exultant conscience-stricken het up ashamed
190 Monika Bednarek

feverish crestfallen jittery contrite

glad cut up jumpy deprecatory
gladdened deflated moonstruck embarrassed
gleeful dejected mystified guilt-ridden
gratified demoralized nervous guilty
happy depressed nervy humbled
honoured desolate nonplussed humiliated
joyful despairing overstrung mortified
joyous despondent overwrought penitent
jubilant devastated perplexed regretful
keyed-up disappointed perturbed remorseful
light-hearted disconsolate punch-drunk repentant
manic discontented puzzled rueful
merry discouraged shaken shamefaced
mirthful disenchanted stressed sheepish
over-excited disgusted stumped afraid
overjoyed disheartened stupefied cowed
pleased disillusioned tense frightened
proud disillusioned troubled horror-stricken
satisfied dismayed twitchy intimidated
starry-eyed dispirited uneasy panicked
thankful distressed unsettled panicky
thrilled doleful wired panic-stricken
tickled down worked-up petrified
touched downcast worried scared
triumphant downhearted wrought-up terrified
upbeat fed up aggravated terrorised
uplifted forlorn angry terror-stricken
admiring gloomy annoyed unnerved
adoring glum antagonistic daunted
amorous gutted antipathetic discomfited
appreciative harassed antsy disquieted
approving heartbroken apoplectic mistrustful
bedazzled heavy-hearted bad-tempered paranoid
besotted heavy-laden bitter queasy
bewitched homesick choleric squirmy
broody hopeless crabbed unglued
charmed horrified crabby aghast
chuffed huffy cranky amazed
 Language patterns and attitude 191

crazy hurt crazed appalled

doting hurting cross astonished
dotty (about) inconsolable crotchety astounded
enamoured low disgruntled awe-stricken
enchanted malcontent displeased awe-struck
enthusiastic melancholic dissatisfied bowled over
fanatical miffed embittered electrified
fervent miserable enraged flabbergasted
fervid morose exasperated gob-smacked
fulfilled mournful fractious horror-struck
grateful offended frenzied impressed
hung up overwhelmed frustrated incredulous
indebted pressured fuming knocked out
infatuated pressured furious overawed
keen rotten grouchy scandalised
lovesick sad grumpy shocked
love-struck saddened hacked off staggered
mad self-pitying ill-disposed startled
obligated shattered impatient stunned
partial (to) sick incensed stupefied
rabid sickened indignant surprised
smitten sombre infuriated taken aback
sold (on) sorrowful irate thunderstruck
taken with sorrowing ireful covetous
well-disposed stung irked envious
worshipful suicidal irritable green-eyed
agog tired irritated jealous
anxious tormented livid territorial
bursting (to do) traumatized maddened avid
desirous unhappy narked bent on
desperate unhopeful nettled dying (for/to)
edgy unsatisfied outraged eager
fevered woeful peeved gasping for
heedful wounded peevish intent
hungry (for) wretched petulant
itching addled piqued
192 Monika Bednarek

Author’s address
Monika Bednarek
University of Technology, Sydney
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
PO Box 123 Broadway
NSW 2007 Australia
mb399@yahoo.co.uk