Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton May 9, 2022

The language of evaluation in a Philippine drug trial: an appraisal framework perspective

  • Ina Francesca G. Deuna

    Ina Francesca G. Deuna is a master’s candidate for English Studies with a specialization in language at the University of the Philippines-Diliman. She is also currently working as a research analyst for peace and security in the government. At the same time, she is also pursuing studies on the Korean language to work on translation studies. Her research interests include strategic communication, crisis and risk communications, sociolinguistics, forensic linguistics, and multimodality.

    ORCID logo
    and Rachelle Ballesteros-Lintao

    Rachelle Ballesteros-Lintao is a full professor and the incumbent Chair of the Department of English, University of Santo Tomas in Manila, the Philippines. She is the Country Representative of Clarity (an international plain language organization) and the Country and Language Representative of the International Plain Language Federation. Her research interests include forensic linguistics, discourse analysis, and language education.

    ORCID logo EMAIL logo

Abstract

In courtroom discourses, evaluative language serves a pivotal role in assessing witnesses for determining the credibility of the testimonies provided and consequently influencing the outcome of the trial. Adopting the appraisal framework, this paper conducted a case study to examine the attitude resources used by court participants in a Philippine drug trial to determine the presence and use of evaluations in courtroom discourse, particularly across trial stages. Results showed that JUDGMENT is the most prevalent valuation in the study with its sub-system Tenacity scoring the highest frequency, followed by APPRECIATION and its sub-category valuation, while AFFECT was uncommon in the trial. The attitude items were also found to be most prevalent in the direct-examination and cross-examination stages to highlight the following: the knowledge of the witnesses on the incident, their involvement in the incident, and the sources of their information. It also showed the adherence of the judge to the principle of neutrality as the decision focused on the legal norms of the facts of the case. The results also attest that ‘legality’ is a distinct feature of the evaluative language in courtroom discourse.


Corresponding author: Rachelle Ballesteros-Lintao, University of Santo Tomas, Manila, The Philippines, E-mail:

About the authors

Ina Francesca G. Deuna

Ina Francesca G. Deuna is a master’s candidate for English Studies with a specialization in language at the University of the Philippines-Diliman. She is also currently working as a research analyst for peace and security in the government. At the same time, she is also pursuing studies on the Korean language to work on translation studies. Her research interests include strategic communication, crisis and risk communications, sociolinguistics, forensic linguistics, and multimodality.

Rachelle Ballesteros-Lintao

Rachelle Ballesteros-Lintao is a full professor and the incumbent Chair of the Department of English, University of Santo Tomas in Manila, the Philippines. She is the Country Representative of Clarity (an international plain language organization) and the Country and Language Representative of the International Plain Language Federation. Her research interests include forensic linguistics, discourse analysis, and language education.

References

An Outline of Appraisal. 2015. The appraisal website. Available at: https://www.grammatics.com/appraisal/appraisaloutline/framed/frame.htm.Search in Google Scholar

Anesa, Patrizia. 2011. Courtroom discourses: An analysis of the Westerfield Jury trial. [Universita’ Degli Studi Di Verona]. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Courtroom-Discourses%3A-An-Analysis-of-the-Jury-Trial-Anesa/b1eb48d96dd8ad55d31f608d16ac8847e5d24bd9.Search in Google Scholar

Anthony, Laurence. 2005. Antconc: Design and development of a freeware corpus analysis toolkit for the technical writing classroom. IEEE International Professional Communication Proceedings. http://www.uibk.ac.at/tuxtrans/docs/antconc.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Anthony, Laurence. 2014. AntConc (Windows, Macintosh OS X, and Linux). Available at: https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software/antconc/releases/AntConc343/help.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Barabino, Guadalupe Soriano. 2020. Cultural, textual and linguistic aspects of legal translation: A model of text analysis for training legal translators. International Journal of Legal Discourse 5(2). 285–300.10.1515/ijld-2020-2037Search in Google Scholar

Benamara, Farah. 2016. Evaluative language beyond bags of words: Linguistic insights and computational applications. Computational Linguistics 43(1). 1–103.10.1162/COLI_a_00278Search in Google Scholar

Breeze, Ruth. 2011. Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourses. Iberica 21. 93–116.Search in Google Scholar

Chaemsaithong, Krisda. 2017. Evaluative stancetaking in courtroom opening statements. Folia Linguistica 51(1). 103–132.10.1515/flin-2017-0003Search in Google Scholar

Heffer, Chris. 2007. Judgement in court: Evaluating participants in courtroom discourse. In K. Kredens & S. Gozdz-Roszkowski (eds.), Language and the law: International outlooks, vol. 16, 145–179. Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar

Hill, Gerald & Kathleen Hill. 2020. The people’s law dictionary. Law.Com Website. Available at: http://dictionary.law.com/.Search in Google Scholar

Hood, Susan. 2010. Appraising research: Evaluation in academic writing. London: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230274662Search in Google Scholar

Hu, Ming, Xitao He & Le Cheng. 2021. Exploring digital economy: A sociosemiotic perspective. International Journal of Legal Discourse 6(2). 181–202.10.1515/ijld-2021-2053Search in Google Scholar

Hunston, Susan & Geoff Thompson (eds.). 2001. Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198238546.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Laird, Steven & John Cummings. 2015. Direct and cross-examination. Available at: http://texlawyers.com/documents/direct-and-cross-examination.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Martin, J. R. 2000. Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in English. In Susan Hunston & Geoff Thompson (eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198238546.003.0008Search in Google Scholar

Martin, J. R. & P. R. R. White. 2005. The language of evaluation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230511910Search in Google Scholar

Muriçi, Myrteza. 2017. The language of the law—Some characteristics. International Journal of English Language, Literature, and Translation Studies 4(1). 66–69.Search in Google Scholar

Pascual, Marianna. 2010. Appraisal in the research genres: An analysis of grant proposals by Argentinean researchers. Revista Signos 43(73). 261–280.10.4067/S0718-09342010000200004Search in Google Scholar

Pontrandolfo, G. & S. Gozdz-Roszkowski. 2013. Evaluative patterns in judicial discourse: A corpus-based phraseological perspective on American and Italian criminal judgments. International Journal of Law, Language & Discourse 3(2). 9–69.Search in Google Scholar

Pontrandolfo, Gianluca & Stanislaw Gozdz-Roszkowski. 2014. Exploring the local grammar of evaluation: The case of adjectival patterns. Research in Language 12(1). 71–91.10.2478/rela-2014-0014Search in Google Scholar

Princeton University. 2010. Princeton University “About WordNet.” WordNet. https://wordnet.princeton.edu/.Search in Google Scholar

Ranada, Pia. 2016. A look at the state of crime drugs in the Philippines. Rappler. https://www.rappler.com/nation/118004-crime-drugs-philippines/.Search in Google Scholar

Shi, Guang. 2018. An analysis of attitude in Chinese courtroom discourse. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 54(1). 147–174. https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2018-0005.Search in Google Scholar

Tiersma, Peter. 2008. The nature of legal language. Dimensions of forensic linguistics, 7–25. John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/aaals.5.03tie.Search in Google Scholar

Tkačuková, Tatiana. 2010. Lay people as cross-examiners: A linguistic analysis of the libel case McDonald’s corporation v. Helen Steel and David Morris. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law 17(2). 307–310. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v17i2.307.Search in Google Scholar

Tokunaga, Anne. 2010. Understanding the language of evaluation: An introduction to Appraisal theory. 言語と文化 2010(9). 1–18.Search in Google Scholar

Wagner, Anne, Aleksandra Matulewska & Le Cheng. 2020. Law as a culturally constituted sign-system – A space for interpretation. International Journal of Legal Discourse 5(2). 239–267.10.1515/ijld-2020-2041Search in Google Scholar

Wei, Yakun, Michael Wherrity & Yi Zhang. 2015. An analysis of current research on appraisal theory. Linguistics and Literature Studies 3(5). 235–239. https://doi.org/10.13189/lls.2015.030506.Search in Google Scholar

White, P. R. R. 2000. Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in English. Available at: http://www.isfla.org/Systemics/Print/MartinPapers/BC-2000-Beyond%20exchange%20appraisal%20system%20in%20English.PDF.Search in Google Scholar

Whitelaw, Casey. 2005. Using appraisal groups for sentiment analysis. CIKM’05. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shlomo_Argamon/publication/200044325_Using_appraisal_groups_for_sentiment_analysis/links/0deec518fbe4483117000000.pdf.10.1145/1099554.1099714Search in Google Scholar

Williams, Christopher. 2004. Legal English and plain language: An introduction. ESP Across Cultures 1. 111–124.Search in Google Scholar

Xinghua, Liu & Paul Thompson. 2009. An application of Appraisal theory to teaching college English reading in China. Language Studies Working Papers 1. 3–15.10.4304/jltr.1.2.133-135Search in Google Scholar

Yang, Linxiu. 2013. Evaluative functions of reporting evidentials in English research articles of applied linguistics. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics 3(2). 119–126.10.4236/ojml.2013.32016Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2020-03-31
Accepted: 2022-03-22
Published Online: 2022-05-09
Published in Print: 2022-04-26

© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 29.3.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/ijld-2022-2068/pdf
Scroll to top button