Systemic Functional Linguistics
THE APPLICATION OF SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL LINGUISTICS IN TEXT ANALYSIS
THEODOROU MARIA
Table of Contents
Introduction
1. Systemic Functional grammar
2. Contextual analysis
3. Methods of analysis
3.1. The System of Transitivity
3.2. The System of Appraisal
4. Linguistic Analysis
4.1. Experiential Meaning
4.2. Interpersonal Meaning
Conclusion
References
Appendices
Representation of experience
Appendix Aa: 'No target' in UK animal tests plan
Appendix Ba: Pro-Test standing up for science
Representation of interpersonal meanings
Appendix Ab: 'No target' in UK animal tests plan
Appendix Bb: Pro-Test standing up for science
Introduction
1. Systemic Functional grammar
Hallidays’ semantics theory of Systemic Functional Grammar has its roots in the Firthian System (set of relations between commutable units which provide values for the elements of structure) (Firth, 1962) and Structure (arrangement of elements ordered in places) model (Fawcett, 2000). Halliday stresses language functions and advocates that the choices the writer makes in a particular context need to be systematically related to the system of grammar and lexis (Butt et al., 2001). Regarding choices, context and meaning Thompson (2004) ascribes to language three functions: Experiential, Interpersonal and Textual. In the same vein, Halliday and Matthiessen (2004) note that contextual meaning can be grasped through three main linguistic variables: Field (the subject matter of a semantic unit) - Ideational Function, Tenor (the participant’s role during interaction) - Interpersonal Function, Mode (the channel of communication)-Textual Function. Pointing to anthropological and sociological research, Fairclough(1989) identifies language as ‘’a form of social practice which is socially conditioned by the parts of our society’’.
Turning to the purpose of this paper, it is to give an account of how the semantic functions of the lexicogrammar patterns used in a newspaper article and a website page can be decoded by the conceptual framework of Systemic Functional Grammar. Notably, this paper will focus on the fact that the analysis of the textual function through the application of the systems of Transitivity and Appraisal can elucidate the way writers exercise their authority, talk their discourse participant into the validity of their argument and direct the unknown addressee to interpretations. This paper is divided into two main parts. The first part presents the Experiential meaning of the identified figures found in both texts. The second part moves on to describe the Interpersonal meanings which derive from the analysis of language resources in relation to Attitude and Engagement.
2. Contextual analysis
Mode
Text A: ‘No target' in UK animal tests plan’. This article appeared on 7 February 2014 on BBC News website.
Tenor
The science reporter, James Morgan, is the addresser and the wide unknown readership is the addressee. External voices are incorporated for the purpose of journalistic discourse.
Field
The field of this text alludes to the position of the UK government and the Anti-Vivisection Society towards animal experimentation.
Social context
The science reporter disseminates information regarding MP Norman Baker’s position on the 3Rs, a UK humane policy towards animal experimentation. Although the Minister seems committed to his battle, the Anti-Vivisection Society condemns his intentions.
Mode
Text B: ‘’ Pro-Test standing up for science.’’ This text appears on the ‘About us’ page of the official website of ‘Pro-Test’.
Tenor
Pro-Test appears to be the addresser in control throughout the text and the unknown readership of the webpage is the addressee.
Field
The field of this text alludes to the supporting position of Pro-Test, towards animal testing. Subordinately it refers to the actions of the extremist anti-vivisectionist groups SPEAK and ALF.
Social context
The Oxford-based non- violent protest group, Pro-Test is currently run by a committee of academics, Oxford students and medical writers who support scientific research and animal testing. The purpose of this test is to condemn the actions of the anti-vivisectionist groups SPEAK and ALF and justify the constitution and the position of Pro-Test.
3. Methods of analysis
3.1. The System of Transitivity
Halliday(2003), accentuates that Transitivity is ‘the theory of processes’ and as a system it is ‘committed to meaning’ with ‘every instance being both a reflection and an action’. Likewise, Matthiessen holds the view that the information and meaning conveyed by a sentence is presented by its ‘figures’ which reflect the flow of events (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004). Each sentence of a text is segregated according to the process types (material, mental, relational, verbal, behavioural and existential), the participants and the circumstance which is the condition related to the process.
TRANSITIVITY represented as system network (adapted from M.A.K. Halliday and Christian Matthiessen 2004 p. 173)
Halliday ( 2004) interprets the material process as the physical world of doing with participants the actor ( who does the action), the goal ( who/ that is affected by the action), the recipient ( who receives) and the beneficiary ( for whom the action is done). The mental process is interpreted as the world of consciousness and sensing with participants either a senser ( who does the mental process) or a phenomenon (the perceived thing). The verbal process is this of verbal communication in which the participants are called sayer (who says), receiver (who receives the message) and verbiage (what is said). The relational process belongs to the world of abstract relations with participants categorized as: a) a carrier (an entity) and the attribute (the characterization of the entity), b) the possessor (who owns) and the possessed (what is owned), c) the token and the value. The existential process is the process which represents that something exists. Finally, there are the circumstantial elements which represent extent, location, manner, cause and contingency.
In a study of SFG, Eggins (2004) determines that the system of transitivity is related to the descriptive category of Field. Thus, while analyzing a text, the structure of the figures will uncloak the relationship between the signifier (the projected world of the text into the given socio-cultural context) and the signified (the world of the author) (Granz, 2013). In the same way, the writer can use the system of transitivity as a tool to express the causality of the external world and the reasoning of the internal (Pit, 2003). What is the greatest function of transitivity though is that it helps readers identify the roles of cause and effect certain elements play within a clause structure and, thereby, construe the nature of a text (Halliday, 2003).
3.2. The System of Appraisal
Martin and White (2005) acknowledge that interpersonal meaning can be explicated by negotiation, involvement and appraisal. The system of Appraisal, as an area for consideration, incorporates as primary sources the systems of Engagement, Attitude and Graduation.
An overview of appraisal resources (adapted from J. R. Martin and P. R. R.White 2005 p.38)
Markedly, the system of Attitude includes three sub-categories namely Affect, Judgment and Appreciation. Affect utilizes the linguistic recourses that attribute emotion. Judgment attributes positive or negative evaluation according to social norms and it is divided in two main types: The Social Esteem which determines how usual (normality), able (capacity), resolute (tenacity) a person is and the Social Sanction which determines how truthful (veracity) and ethical (propriety) someone is. Appreciation, attributes the aesthetics of objects or state of affairs. Attitude can either be explicitly presented through lexical items or implicitly through provoked and evoked language (Martin & White, 2005).
In the SFG account, Appraisal is related to the Tenor, the relationship between the addresser and the addressee. Martin and White (2005) theorise that voice is considered to be Authorial when writers establish their presence within a text. In contrast, when the writers’ voice is impersonal or absent, it is perceived as Non-authorial which in the case of journalistic discourse it attributes objectivity. Although journalistic voice appears to be neutral, it subtly evaluates in order to construct the writer’s reality (White, 2005). Consequently, appraisal as a method of analysis enables the reader to fathom the intersubjective and ideological stance of the addresser in agreement with the negotiation of value and the judgments they pass on the participants and the processes documented within a specific social context. (White, 2005).
4. Linguistic analysis
4.1. Experiential Meaning
Table 1.1
Table 1.1 illustrates some of the main processes both writers have chosen to present the field of their texts. As can be seen from the data, the prevailing process in the text ‘’No target…’’is the material which is followed by a more analogous distribution of the verbal, relational and existential processes. In the same manner, the information derived from the above Table presents the material process as the single transcendent element in the text of Pro-Test.
The material processes found in both texts are mainly transactive since there is always an actor and a goal involved as in the cases of:
‘’ The UK government has launched its delivery plan…’’ (1a)
‘’… groups like SPEAK had been protesting the … construction of a … Research Facility…’’ (2b)
Transactive material processes attribute power to the Actor and make Goals equally important since they are ‘’ explicit forms of causation’’ (Lang, 2007, p. 85). In the material processes, found in both texts, goal are clear (Halliday, 1985). Goals appear to be metonymical displacements as in the pre-mentioned examples or instrumentalised as in the sentences:
‘’I challenge you…’’ (14a)
‘’ we… condemn those…’’ (9b)
Leeuwen (2008) maintains that writers intergrate instrumentalised goals whenever they want to ascribe a degree of bureaucratisation. In other instances the writer employs descriptivised reactions as exemplified by:
‘’What we are doing is bringing these two great British traditions together.’’(9a)
so as to impute quality to the social actor ( Leeuwen, 2008).
Table 1.2
The most striking observation to emerge from the data comparison of circumstance summarized in Table 1.2 is the descriptive character of both texts. The writer in the text’’ No target…’’ focuses the readers’ attention upon the causality and the spatial location of processes with the aforethought to present the facts objectively (Fairclough, 1989). Although the core circumstantial element of cause prevails in the text ‘’Pro-Test…’, the writer gives rise to an analogous distribution of circumstances of location, time manner and means to reinforce the descriptive character and interpret the offered information as facts in anticipation that the readers will perceive them as valid. This writer inducts the subjective experience of time in the phrases:
‘’For well over a year…’’(2b)
‘’ …five years after…’’ (16b)
to accomplish the aim of presenting to the readers the power anti-vivisectionists’ group had and help them synchronize with the order of events ( Leeuwen, 2008).
Moreover the use of such linguistic resources as:
‘It pledges to encourage…’ (2a)
‘’ Pro-Test aims to counter…’’ (6b)
explicitly empower the actor in order to present his intentions ( Leeuwen, 2008).
Assuming that the actor has set his priorities, the writer points towards nominated objectivation as it is reflected on the sentence:
‘’ Minimising the use of animals can also be an opportunity…..’ (14a)
He therefore ‘’labels’’ Minister Baker as fully aware of the moral obligation and the demand at stake (Leeuwen, 2008). Existentialization of actions indicated in the sentences:
‘’ The commitment is to 'work…’’(7a)
‘’ Britain is a world leader in science…’’(8a)
‘’ Pro-Test exists to support...’’ (8b)
is another way to meet objectivation and state the existence of an entity (Halliday, 1985).
In the same respect, semioticized actions as:
"This isn't about a numerical target…" said David Willetts… (6a)
appear to be in a high proportion in the ‘’No target’’ text. For van Leeuwen(2008), not only do they help the writer to represent the social actors and the words they use to state their opinion by means of a quote but also they enable the writer ‘’ to enhance the credibility of an embedded representation’’. Moreover, the alternation of actors shift the focus away from the governmental plan, provide readers with a clearer view of the sides that have sparked this continuing controversy and allow them to construe reality and take a position.
In the Pro-Test text, the writer chooses as the focal point to be the name of the eponymous group. Whether the writer avails himself of active or passive voice, Pro –Test, either as an actor of the process or as a beneficialised participant, is always subjected (Halliday, 1985). The write uses it as an authoritative resource to draw reader’s attention on the valid identity Pro-Test seeks to construct within the social practices and towards the subject matter from which it stems its ideology ( Giddens, 1984). Through the predicator ‘’ Click…’’ (12b) Pro-Test, as an implied Actor shows its dominance and controls readers’ actions by moving them towards a specific location in order to discover for themselves the actor’s actions and clear - cut position (Cohen, 1989). A key point to consider is the aspiration of the writer to create a sound profile of the Actor Pro-Test in a socio-cultural context which is against its goals (Leeuwen, 2008).
4.1. Interpersonal Meaning
The system of Appraisal allowed for the analysis and interpretation of the language resources in the BBC news article ‘’No target…’’ and the text of Pro-Test. The focal point of both texts is animal testing. As an issue, it has taken widespread social dimension triggering huge controversy between the fervent supporters of animal experimentation and animal welfare organizations.
Table 2.1
Due to the strained relations between the animal welfare organizations, the government and the position the media is obliged to take, the BBC reporter adopts a non- authorial interpersonal stance towards the specific context of the text no matter how reasoned its reflection of reality is (Fairclough,1989) so as to present the facts in a free of personal bias manner (Martin & White, 2005). This deliberately adopted distance is highlighted by the proportion of Inta and Extra Vocalisations provided in Table 2.1. His heteroglossic negotiation nominates social actors and foregrounds voices of credible people who have high status in society to attain the causality of concrete facts and prudently builds the reliability of his stance (Fairclough, 1989).
The writers’ stance (Hyland, 1999) entails three main fundamentals: the evidentiality through which writers appears reliable, the affect towards the contextualized facts and the presence. Biber and Finegan (1988) claim that although a reporters’ stance must be impersonal, impartial and objective, it still embodies a degree of evaluation since reporters put themselves in a social epistemological position in order to connect with the reader (Roth, 2002). Hence, instances of acknowledged attribution such as ’’ Buav's chief executive…. said’’ or ‘’ Jan Creamer…commented’’ facilitate the emergence of the positive or negative position of readers towards the social actors involved in the text (Fairclough,1989). Moreover, language resources of Proclaim’ Ultimately…’ and Disclaim ‘However…’ signal ‘values and reactions’ towards the presented facts and engage the audience to a situational discourse which is characterized by solidarity (Hyland, 1999). Thus, the writer meets potential objections, addresses concerns and echoes the views of readers (Hyland, 1999).
Table 2.2 illustrates the difference in the ratios of Affect and Judgment. Throughout the text, the writer’s interplay between Authorial and Non – Authorial Affect challenges the audience to espouse or forsake the ideology hidden behind the evoked values of Affect. Yet, the indication of Affect is surmounted by the explicit or implicit evaluations of Social Esteem and Social Sanction which are reflected in the integration of Vocalisations. Initially, the writer locates the position of the Minister for Universities and Science whose heterogloss ascribes implicit negative Judgment towards Minister Baker ‘’this isn't about a numerical target…". To express intensity, the writer employs the explicit negative Judgment of Social Esteem utterances of Bruav’s chief executive who calls the government’s plan a ‘’… broken promise…’’ and a ‘’ …missed opportunity..’’. As another external party who indicates explicit negative Judgment, the chief executive of the National Anti-Vivisection Society calls the government ‘’…powerless…’’ to move towards ‘’…better, faster and cheaper non-animal approaches" and condemns the plan as ‘’… failing…’’. Correspondingly, White (2005) asserts that readers will pass their own judgments according to their socio-cultural – ideological expectations and systems of value.
Focusing on journalistic discourse, objectivity and persuasive writing, it is essential that writers adopt a neutral stance, away from economic or political elites and without value judgment (Ventola, 2000). Similarly, Fairclough( 1989)denotes that the absence of the explicit writers’ value judgment apart from promoting objectivity, it indicates the intention to construct their own reality. A reality in which, the reporters’ masterful power uses causality to assign responsibility (Fairclough, 1989) and authorial intersubjectivity ( Ventola, 2000). In the case of the ‘’ No target…’’ text, Minister Baker is represented as the one who instigates the reduction of animal vivisection whereas the other external parties appear as the ones who impugn his intentions. The judicious manipulation of the external parties’ heteroglossia demonstrate the ‘mechanically determined ideological nature’ of the text (Ventola, 2000), the reporter’s potential to engage his audience (White, 2003) and subtly encourage them to decode the message he wants and eventually embrace his ideological and evaluative position (White, 2005).
Table 2.2
With reference to the attitudinal positioning of the Pro-Test text, the prevailing patterns of linguistic resources reflected in the tables2.1. and 2.2 are Judgment and Monoglossic discourse. Pro-Test addresses its audience with a hegemonic stance (Fairclough, 1985). The writer leaves no scope for the integration of other voices and positions. Instead, the group’s name is placed in subject position in the greatest proportion of the text as an identified institution of high status source which is associated with power and dominance (Fairclough, 1985). Expressions such as ‘’ We stand for science…’’, ‘’Pro test aims…’’ and ‘’Pro Test exists…’’ attribute a strong voice and at the same time ascribe integrity and subjectivity. In this perspective, the individualized voice of the writer intends to construct Pro Test’s identity through a self representation which ascribes ‘authenticity, resonance, authoritativeness and authorial presence’ (Hyland & Guida, 2012).Inevitably, Pro Test’s identity is built in accordance with the ‘beliefs, values and social relations of the social context of the text’ (Ivanic, 1998). For Fairclough (1985), the intention of ‘’synthetic personality’’ is to display a feeling of solidarity (Fairclough, 1985). Regarding self representation, linguistic resources are used in a strategic manner in order to bring Pro-Test closer to the unknown readership, earn their trust and ‘’handle’ them as allies in the same mission (Fairclough, 1985). The writer creates the 'ideal reader ‘’ who embraces the position of those who ‘’are looking for success, the capacity to dominate and, influence others’’ (Fairclough, 1989). Drawing on the ideal audience, individual subjectivity and the valid identity of Pro-Test, the writer marshals all available evidence from the actions of groups such as SPEAK and ALF which belong to the anti-vivisection society, in an attempt to indict their actions (Martin & White, 2005).
Turningt to Table 2.2, it brings to light that patterns of Judgment either of Social esteem or Social sanction dominate the text. Allocations of judgment of capacity as in the sentence ‘’Pro-Test has successfully met its goals’’ appoint efficacy to the group and provide the impetus needed to induce the intended ideal reader into its own ideological position (Shamir et al., 1993). In a descriptive manner, the writer ascribes negative Judgment to both SPEAK and ALF, as a collective identity, as appears in the sentence ‘’Their campaign of intimidation had forced the University's original contractors off the job’’. Van Leeuwen (2008) concurs that the writer engages named individualised social actors as sources in order to assign them full responsibility of actions which are located in a ‘’concrete and specific-here-and-now’’. Conversely, he imputes positive authorial Affect and Judgment towards the position of Pro-Test as in the sentence ‘’We stand for science, reasoned debate and, above all, the promotion of the welfare of mankind’’ to highlight the inequality of intentions which emanate from the positive representation of Pro-Test and the negative representation of the extremist anti-vivisectionist groups SPEAK and ALF (Van Dijk, 1987).
Conclusion
The main objective of the current paper has been to construct meaning in relation to the Experiential and Interpersonal orientations of the selected texts. One of the more significant findings to emerge from this textual analysis is that Halliday’s Systemic Functional Grammar network can enable an ideal reader to unveil the gimmickry writers use with the intention to convince their audience. As observed in the BBC news article, the writer engaged people of high social status by means of heteroglossic discourse to subtly manipulate and direct readers to interpret the information in a certain way which serves a certain ideology (Fairclough, 2003). By contrast, the writer of the text Pro –Test, employed lexicogrammar resources and evaluative actions and reactions to attribute authoritative stance to the group of Pro-Test as well as to ally itself with the readers into certain values and beliefs (Martin & White, 2005). Drawing on Fairclough’s view, the systems of transitivity and appraisal as tools of a systemic approach towards contextual configurations can help readers to construe the meaning of a text no matter how ‘’transparent’’ or ‘’less opaque’’ is (2003).
References
Biber, D. & Finegan, E. (1988). Adverbial stance types in English.
Discourse Processes. ERIC, 11 (1), 1–34.
Butt, D., Fahey,R., Feez, S., Spinks, S.,& Yallop, C.(2001). Using functional grammar: An
explorer's guide. (2nd ed.). Sydney: NCELTR.
Cohen, G.A. (1989). On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.
Eggins, S. (2004). An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics.
(2nd ed.).London: Continuum international Publishing Group.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. UK: Longman.
Fawcett, R. (2000). A Theory of Syntax for Systemic functional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins B.V.
Firth, J.R. (1962). Studies in Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Giddens, A. (1984). The Construction of Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Granz,O. (2013).Uunderstanding Participant- Reference Shifts in the
Book of Jeremiah: a study of exegetical method and its consequences
for the interpretation of referential incoherence. The Netherlands:
Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. (2003). On Language and Linguistics. London: Continuum.
Halliday, M.A.K. & Matthiessen, C. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. ( 3rd ed.)
London: Hodder Arnold.
Hyland, K. (1999). Disciplinary discourses: Writer stance in research articles’, in C. Candlin &
K. Hyland (eds.) Writing texts: Processes and practices (pp. 99–121). London: Longman.
Hyland, K. & Guinda,S.C. (2012). Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and Identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic
writing (Studies in Written Language and Literacy). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing
Company.
Lang, P.(2007). Transitivity in Translating: The Interdependence of Texture and Context.
Bern: International Academic Publishers.
Leeuwen,T. (2008). Discourse and Practice New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Martin, J.R. & White, P. R. R. (2005). The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pit,M.( 2003). How to Express Yourself with a Causal Connective. Amsterdam: Rodopi B.V.
Roth, A. (2002). Language in Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic
leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4, 577-594.
Thompson, G. (2004). Introducing Functional Grammar. (2nd ed.) Great Britain: Hodder
Education.
Van Dijk, T.A.( 1987). Communicating Psaciesm Ethnic Prejudice in Thought and Talk.
London: Sage Publications.
Ventola, E. (2000). Discourse and Community: doing functional linguistics. Germany:
Tubingen.
White,L.(2003). Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
White, P.R.R. (2005). Appraisal Website Homepage: The Language of Atti-tude, Arguability
and Interpersonal Positioning. . Retrieved from:
http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal/index.html.
Appendices
Representation of experience
Appendix Aa: 'No target' in UK animal tests plan
This article was written by James Morgan who is a Science reporter. It appeared on the BBC News site on 7 of February
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
PROCESS
Pm= material
Pme= mental
Pb= behavioural
Pv= verbal
Pe= existential
Pr= relational
Pp= possessive
PARTICIPANTS
A= actor
G= goal
B= beneficiary
S= senser
Vb= verbiage
Be= behavier
BH= behaviour
X= existent
T= token
V= value
Cr= carrier
At= attribute
Ve= verbiage
Sa= sayer
Ph=phenomenon
CIRCUMSTANCE
Cl= location
Cco= contingency
Cm= manner
Cms= means
Ct= time
Cc =cause
Cmt= matter
(1a). The UK government(A) has launched(Pm) its delivery plan(G) to replace, refine and reduce the use of animals(Cc) in research (Cl) – known( Pme) as "the 3Rs".(Ph)
(2a). It (Be) pledges (Pb) to encourage (Pm) scientists (G) to use alternatives (Cc) wherever possible.(Ct)
(3a). But there is (Pe) no commitment(X) in the strategy (Cl) released (Pm) on Friday (Ct) to reduce the total number of animal experiments (Cc), which has been (Pe) on the rise. (At)
(4a). This (V/ identified) is (Pr) despite a post-election pledge by the Coalition (Cco) to cut the use of animals (Cc) in scientific research.(Cl)
(5a). Instead, the government (A) will promote (Pm) new, more ethical research techniques (G) which can help (Pm) boost (Cc) UK science.(G)
(6a). "This (V/ identified) isn't (Pr) about a numerical target,"(Cmt) said (Pv) David Willetts, Minister for Universities and Science.(Sa)
(7a). "The commitment (V/ identified) is(Pr) to 'work to reduce use of animals'(Cc). Ultimately the final figure (A) will depend (Pm) on patterns(Cl) of scientific advance.(Cc)
(8a). "Britain (Cr) is(Pr) a world leader(At) in science(Cl) but also in concern(At) for the welfare of animals. (Cc)
(9a) What we (A) are doing (Pm) is (Pr) bringing (Pm) these two great British traditions together. (G)
(10a). "We (Cr) are(Pr) absolutely committed (At)to the 3Rs."(Cc)
'Artificial' focus
(11a). Crime Prevention Minister Norman Baker (Sa), who is leading (Pm) the Home Office work,(G) said (Pv)it (Cr)would be(Pe) "artificial"(At) to focus on the absolute numbers of animal experiments.(Cc)
(12a). "Had work (G) not been done(Pm) via the 3Rs(Cms) we(Cr)'d already have (Pp)a higher number,"(At) he(Sa) said.(Pv)
(13a). ["If we (A) are attracting(Pm) scientists(G) from overseas(Cl)](Cco) because of our good scientific base,(Cc) that(A) will impact(Pm) the total figure.(B)
(14a). "Minimising (Pm) the use of animals (G) can also be (Pe) an opportunity (X)for the science sector.(Cl)
(15a). "I (A) challenge (Pm) you (B) to find a document like this(G) anywhere else in the world."(Cl)
(16a). However, the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (Buav)(Sa), which campaigns(Pm) to end animal testing(Cc), called (Pv)the strategy(Ve) a "missed opportunity".(At)
(17a). Buav's chief executive, Michelle Thew,(Sa) said(Pv) "This(Co) is(Pr) a whitewash (At)and shows(Pm) that the Government (A)has [in reality(Cm)] given up(Pm) on what(B) it(Sa) promised (Pv)to do (Cc)and that(V/ identified) is (Pr)to reduce the number of animal experiments.(Cc)
(18a). "This broken promise(Cr) is (Pr)a missed opportunity(At) for the Government(Cc) to make meaningful and lasting change(Cc) for the millions of animals(Cc) that are suffering(Pm) in UK laboratories."(Cl)
(19a). Jan Creamer, chief executive of the National Anti-Vivisection Society (Navs)(Sa) commented: (Pv)"Incredibly, the Government report (Sa)admits(Pv) the failings of animal research(Ve), yet claims (Pv)to be(Pe) powerless(At) to move(Pm) towards(Cl) what it(Sa) calls(Pv) the 'better, faster and cheaper non-animal approaches'."(At)
Appendix Ba: Pro-Test standing up for science
This text appears in the About us page of the official website of Pro-Test.
Pro-Test is an Oxford-based group which is in favour of animal testing for the sake of science.
http://www.pro-test.org.uk/facts.php?lt=c
ABOUT US
(1b). Pro-Test (G)was formed(Pm) in January 2006(Ct) by Laurie Pycroft,(A) a 16-year-old(Cr) frustrated (At) with the way(Cc) that those(Be) opposed(Pb) to vivisection(Ph) (testing(Pm) on animals(B) for the purpose of scientific progress(Cc)) were dominating(Pm) the public debate(G) on animal research.
(2b). (Cc) For well over a year(Ct), groups like SPEAK (A)had been protesting(Pm) the University of Oxford's construction of a new Biomedical Research Facility (G)on South Parks Road, Oxford.(Cl)
(3b).Their campaign of intimidation(A) had forced(Pm) the University's original contractors(B) off (linked to the preceded material process) the job(G) in July 2004.(Ct)
(4b). Construction(A) did not recommence(Pm) until November 2005,(Ct) after which anti-vivisectionists(A) renewed(Pm) their campaign,(G) abetted(Pb) by extremist groups such as the ALF,(Be) which(Sa) announced(Pv) it(A) would target(Pm) students.(G)
(5b). Similar campaigns (A)led(Pm) to the cancellation(G) of a very similar laboratory project(B) in Cambridge(Cl) in 2004.(Ct)
(6b). Pro-Test(A) aims(Pm) to counter the irrational arguments of anti-vivisectionists(Cc) by raising public awareness(Cms) of the benefits of animal research(Cc) and creating an environment(Cms) where scientists (Sa)can speak out(Pv) about their work (Cmt)and be(Pe) proud of(At) the contributions(G) they(A) make.(Pm)
(7b). We (A)stand(Pm) for science, reasoned debate and, above all, the promotion of the welfare of mankind.(Cc)
(8b).Pro-Test(X) exists (Pe)to support the construction of the Oxford lab,(Cc) to make the case for animal research,(Cc) and more generally(Cm) to defend scientific research(Cc) as a necessary tool (At) of human progress (Cc)in a climate(Cl) that(V/identified) is(Pr) increasingly(Cm) misanthropic and suspicious(At) of scientists.(Cc)
(9b).We(A) support (Pm)only non-violent protest(B) and condemn(Pm) those(B) using violence or intimidation(Cms) to further their goals.(Cc)
(10b). We(A) strongly (Cm)support (Pm)animal testing (G)as crucially necessary(At) to further medical science.(Cc)
(11b).Pro-Test (B)is guided (Pm)by a committee of students and academics.(A)
(12b). Click(Pm) on the link above(Cl) to find out (Pm) more (Cm) about us(Cmt).
(13b). We(B) are funded(Pm) entirely(Cm) by voluntary donations(Cms) from private individuals.(A)
(14b). Pro-Test (A)does not accept (Pm)anonymous donations(G) and all funds(B) are accepted(Pm) on a no-strings-attached basis.(Cm)
(15b).No one(A) funding(Pm) Pro-Test(B) has (Pr) any influence(V) over the committee's decision-making process.(Cc)
(16b). In February 2010,(Ct) five years after(Ct)r it(A) formed(Pm), Pro-Test(A) wound up(Pm) its UK operations.(G)
(17b). Pro-Test(A) has [successfully(Cm)] met(Pm) its goals(G) of defending(Pm) the construction of the Oxford Lab,(G) increasing(Pm) awareness(G) of the importance of animal research(Cc), and bringing(Pm) the public(B) on-side(Cl) in support of life-saving medical research.(Cc)
(18b). Pro-Test's sister organisation, Speaking of Research,(G) was created(Pm) by Pro-Test press officer Tom Holder(A) in 2008(Ct) and continues(Pm) to be(Pe) active(At) in both the UK and US(Cl)
Representation of interpersonal meanings
Appendix Ab: 'No target' in UK animal tests plan
Text 1: 'No target' in UK animal tests plan
Evaluative Key
1.'No target' in UK animal tests plan
By James Morgan Science reporter, BBC News
2.The UK government has launched its 3. delivery plan 4.to replace, refine and reduce the use of animals in research - known as "the 3Rs".
It 5.pledges 6. to encourage scientists to use alternatives wherever possible.
7. But 8. there is no commitment in the strategy released on Friday to reduce the total number of animal experiments, which has been 9. on the rise. This is 10. despite 11.a post-election pledge by the Coalition to cut the use of animals in scientific research.
12. Instead, the government will promote 1
13. new, 14. more ethical research techniques which can help boost UK science.15.
E.V."This isn't about a numerical target,"16. said David Willetts, Minister for Universities and Science
E.V."The 17. commitment is 18. to 'work to reduce use of animals'. 19. Ultimately the final figure will depend on patterns of scientific advance.
E.V."Britain is a world leader in science 20.but also 21. in concern for the welfare of animals. What we are doing is 22. bringing these two 23. Great British traditions together.
E.V."We are 24. absolutely 25 committed to the 3Rs."
26. 'Artificial' focus
27. Crime Prevention Minister Norman Baker, who is leading the Home Office work,28. said it would be "artificial" to focus on the absolute numbers of animal experiments.
E.V."Had work not been done via the 3Rs we'd already have a higher number," he 29.said.
E.V."If we are attracting scientists from overseas because of our 30. good scientific base, that will 31.impact the total figure.
E.V."Minimising the use of animals can also be an opportunity for the science sector.
E.V. 32. "I challenge you to find a document like this anywhere else in the world."
33.However, the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (Buav), which campaigns to end animal testing, called the strategy a 34."missed opportunity"( Buav's chief executive, Michelle Thew, 35.said: "This is a 36.whitewash and shows that the Government has in reality 37. given up on what it promised to do and that is to reduce the number of animal experiments. E.V."This 38.broken promise is a 39. missed opportunity for the Government to make 40.meaningful and lasting change for the millions of animals that are 41. suffering in UK laboratories."
Jan Creamer, chief executive of the National Anti-Vivisection Society (Navs) 42. commented: E.V. 43."Incredibly the Government report 44.admits the 45. failings of animal research, yet 46.claims to be 47. powerless to move towards what it calls the 48.'better, faster and cheaper non-animal approaches'.
1.Extra vocalization, Disclaim, Explicit negative judgment capacity social esteem
2.Institutional identified singular high statues source
3. Implicit Judgment of social esteem and social sanction
4.Explicit Judgment Capacity Social Esteem
5.Indicated endorsement/ full responsibility
6. Explicit Judgment Capacity Social Esteem
7.Intra vocalisation, Disclaim Counter -Expect
8.Negative affect
9.Implicit judgment through factual tokens
10.Intra vocalisation, Disclaim Counter-Expect
11. Appreciation
12.Intra vocalisation, Disclaim Counter-Expect
13.Positive judgment normality social esteem
14.Graduation,Positive judgment social sanction
15.Intra vocalisation, Disclaim denial
16..Extra vocalisation
17.Authorial affect, Extra vocalisation
18.Extra vocalized endorsement/ implicit provoked judgment
19.Intra vocalisation, Proclaimed locution concur
20. Proclaim, pronounce
21.Authorial affect , inclination of a personalized high status identified source
22.Evoked judgment through a factual token
23.Positive judgment normality social esteem
24.Judgment capacity social esteem
25.Judgment propriety social sanction
26.Judgment normality social esteem
27.Positive judgment propriety social sanction
28.Extra vocalisation
29.Extra vocalisation
30.Positive judgment normality social esteem
31.Non authorial affect
32.Intra Vocalisation, Pronounce
33.Intra vocalisation, Disclaim Counter- Expect
34.Explicit negative judgment capacity social esteem
35.Extra vocalisation
36.Explicit negative judgment propriety social sanction
37.Implicit provoked negative judgment
38.Explicit negative judgment propriety social sanction
39. Explicit negative judgment capacity social esteem
40.Explicit positive judgment normality, social esteem
41.Non authorial affect/ implicit provoked judgment
42.Extra vocalisation
43.Intra vocalisation, Disclaim Counter-Expect
44.Extra vocalisation, Disendorsed, responsibility delegated
45.Explicit negative judgment capacity social esteem
46.Extra vocalization, Disendorsement / no responsibility, attribute distance
47.Explicit negative judgment capacity social esteem
48.Extra vocalized authorial endorsed/ explicit positive judgment normality, social esteem
E.V. Extra Vocalisations
Appendix Bb: Pro-Test standing up for science
Text 2: Pro-Test standing up for science
Evaluative Key
1.Pro-Test 2.standing up for science
ABOUT US
Pro-Test was formed in January 2006 by Laurie Pycroft, a 16-year-old 3. frustrated with the way that 4. those 5.opposed to vivisection (testing on animals for the purpose of scientific progress) 6. were dominating the public debate on animal research. For well over a year,7. groups like SPEAK 8.had been protesting the University of Oxford's construction of a new Biomedical Research Facility on South Parks Road, Oxford. Their campaign of 9. intimidation 10. had forced the University's original contractors 10. off the job in July 2004. Construction did not recommence until November 2005, 11.after which anti-vivisectionists renewed their campaign,12. abetted by extremist groups such as the ALF which announced 13. it would target students. Similar 14.campaigns led to 15. the cancellation of a very similar laboratory project in Cambridge in 2004.
16.Pro-Test aims to counter the 17.irrational arguments of anti-vivisectionists by 18.raising public awareness of the 19. benefits of animal research and 20. creating an environment where scientists can speak out about their work and 21. be proud of the contributions they make. 22.We stand for science , 23.reasoned debate and, 24. above all, the promotion of the welfare of mankind. 25. Pro-Test exists 26.to support the construction of the Oxford lab, 27.to make the case for animal research, and 28 more generally 29.to defend scientific research as a 30. necessary tool of human progress in a climate that is 31.increasingly 32. misanthropic and suspicious of scientists. We 33.support only 34. non-violent protest and 35. condemn those using 36. violence or intimidation to further their goals. We 37. strongly 38.support animal testing as 39. crucially 40. necessary to further medical science.
Pro-Test is guided by a committee of students and academics. Click on the link above to find out more about us. We are funded 41.entirely by 42.voluntary donations from private individuals. 43.Pro-Test does not accept anonymous donations and all funds are accepted on a 44.no-strings-attached basis.45. No one funding Pro-Test 46.has any influence over the committee's decision-making process.
In February 2010, five years after it formed, Pro-Test 47.wound up its UK operations. Pro-Test has 48. successfully met its goals of 49.defending the construction of the Oxford Lab,49.increasing awareness of the importance of animal research, and 49.bringing the public on-side in support of 50. life-saving medical research. Pro-Test's sister organisation, Speaking of Research, was created by Pro-Test press officer Tom Holder in 2008 and continues to be active in both the UK and US
1.Intra vocalization, Institutional identified singular high status source
2.Authorial positive affect which shows sympathy and support towards science and animal testing
3.Non authorial negative affect – as an epithet which shows the dissatisfaction of L Pycroft. / implicit provoked judgment
4.Unnamed generic collectivized source
5.Inscriptive assessment according to beliefs / judgment propriety , social sanction
6.Explicit tokenised intensification of negative social sanction judgment which condemns the position of the group
7.Generic association source
8.Non authorial negative affect towards SPEAK/ implicit provoked negative judgment
9.Explicit negative judgment of social sanction and social esteem
10.Explicit negative judgment with social sanction. The writer wanted to be subjunctive and to intensify
11.Implicit provoked negative judgment through factual tokens
12.Implicit provoked negative judgment
13. Implicit provoked negative judgment through factual tokens
14.Collective source
15.Non authorial affect/ nominalization/ implicit provoked negative judgment towards the behavior of a group
16.Intra vocalization, Personalization of source , named, individualized social actors of high status who take full responsibility
17. Judgment normality, social esteem
18.Inscribed positive judgment through factual tokens
19.Explicit judgment propriety social sanction
20. Inscribed positive judgment through factual tokens
21.Positive Affect
22. Intra vocalization, Personalization of source and positive authorial affect
23.Judgment normality, social esteem
24.Intra vocalisation, Proclaim: Expectation
25.Intra vocalization,
Authorial affect , inclination of a personalized high status identified source
26.Authorial affect , inclination of a personalized high status identified source, Judgment capacity social esteem
27.Judgement capacity social esteem
28. Graduation
29. Judgment capacity social esteem
30.Judgment normality, social esteem
31.Judgment capacity, social esteem
32.Explicit negative judgment propriety, social sanction
33.Intra vocalisation, Proclaim, Pronouncement
34.Judgment normality social esteem
35.Intra vocalisation, Proclaim, Pronouncement
36.Intra vocalization,
37. judgment capacity social esteem
38. Intra vocalisation, Proclaim, Pronouncement
39. judgement capacity
40.Judgment normality/ appreciation valuation
41.Intra vocalization, Judgment capacity, social esteem
42.judgemnt normality social esteem
43.Intra vocalization, Personalized high status identified source/ authorial negative affect
44.Judgment normality, social esteem
45.Intra vocalisation, Disclaim, Negative non authorial affect nominalization
46.Intra vocalization, Negative authorial affect/ implicit provoked judgment
47.Intra vocalization, Evoked judgment by factual tokens
48.Judgment capacity, social esteem
49. Implicit provoked positive judgment through factual tokens
50.Judgment propriety, social sanction