Cover not available
Article published In:
Functions of Language
Vol. 29:2 (2022) ► pp.169–198

Diachronic changes of least delicate appraisal in parliamentary and congressional language

An SFL-based computational study

ORCID logo | Qassim University
This study investigates least delicate patterns of appraisal in two diachronic corpora of UK Parliament and U.S. Congress speeches over the last two centuries, focusing on diachronic changes and trends of systemic probabilities of least delicate engagement and attitude polarity. Based on computational algorithms that automatically extract appraisal instances and intersections from the two corpora, the comparative analysis carried out in this paper incorporates several statistical methods, including homogeneity or ‘change-point’ tests, Mann-Kendall trend analysis, and time-series Correspondence Analysis. The results indicate that, in both corpora, probabilities of monoglossic as well as attitudinal patterns (as opposed to neutral ones) follow statistically significant upward trends. In addition, positive polarity is increasing steadily, especially in the U.S. Congress. appraisal intersections are also dynamically changing depending on changes in sociopolitical circumstances. More specifically, in the formative and early years during which party conflicts were intensified, heteroglossic patterns are favored. In war and post-war periods, monoglossic patterns are more associated with neutral polarity. In recent decades, during which political polarization hit a peak, monoglossic patterns begin to favor attitudinal polarity. These findings are discussed in terms of possible causal and correlational interpretations, limitations and directions for future research.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Corpora and methodology
    • 2.1Corpora
    • 2.2Appraisal
    • 2.3Computational and statistical methodology
  • 3.Statistical results
    • 3.1Diachronic changes in least delicate choices of engagement in the UK Parliament and U.S. Congress
    • 3.2Diachronic changes in attitudinal polarity choices in the UK Parliament and U.S. Congress
    • 3.3Diachronic patterns of least delicate appraisal intersections in the UK Parliament and U.S. Congress
  • 4.Discussion and conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 4 March 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.21001.alm
References (61)
References
Abercrombie, Gavin & Batista‑Navarro, Riza. 2020. Sentiment and position‑taking analysis of parliamentary debates: A systematic literature review. Journal of Computational Social Science 31. 245–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Almutairi, Bandar Alhumaidi A. 2019. Quantifying systemic coupling and syndrome using multivariate statistical methods: An SFL corpus example. Linguistics and the Human Sciences 15(1). 1–38.Google Scholar
Álvarez-Benito, Gloria, Gloria Fernández-Díaz & Isabel Íñigo-Mora (eds.). 2009. Discourse and politics. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Archer, Dawn. 2018. Negotiating difference in political contexts: An exploration of Hansard. Language Sciences 68 1. 22–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Argamon, Shlomo, Kenneth Bloom, Andrea Esuli & Fabrizio Sebastiani. 2007. Automatically determining attitude type and force for sentiment analysis. Paper presented at the LTC 2007, Berlin.
Arya, Apoorva, Vishal Shukla, Arvind Negi & Kapil Gupta. 2020. A review: Sentiment analysis and opinion mining. Paper presented at the the International Conference on Innovative Computing & Communications (ICICC) 2020, New Delhi.
Bayley, Paul. 2004a. The whys and wherefores of analysing parliamentary discourse. In Paul Bayley (ed.), 1–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed.). 2004b. Cross-cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bednarek, Monika. 2006. Evaluation in media discourse: Analysis of a newspaper corpus. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1995. On the role of computational, statistical, and interpretive techniques in multi-dimensional analyses of register variation: A reply to Watson. Text 15(3). 341–370.Google Scholar
Chilton, Paul. 2004. Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chilton, Paul & Christina Schäffner. 1997. Discourse and politics. In Teun A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as social interaction, Vol. 21, 206–230. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Decter-Frain, Ari & Jeremy A. Frimer. 2016. Impressive words: Linguistic predictors of public approval of the U.S. Congress. Front. Psychol. 7(240). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gentzkow, Matthew, Jesse M. Shapiro & Matt Taddy. 2019. Measuring group differences in high-dimensional choices: Method and application to congressional speech. Econometrica 87(4). 1307–1340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerston, Larry N. 2010. Public policy making: Process and principles. Armonk: M.E.Sharpe.Google Scholar
Glynn, Dylan. 2014. Correspondence analysis: Exploring data and identifying patterns. In Dylan Glynn & Justyna A. Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (Human Cognitive Processing 43), 443–485. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenacre, Michael J. 1984. Theory and applications of correspondence analysis. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Haarman, Louann & Linda Lombardo. 2009. Introduction. In Louann Haarman & Linda Lombardo (eds.), Evaluation and stance in war news, 1–26. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1991a. Corpus studies and probabilistic grammar. In Karin Aijmer & Bengt Altenberg (eds.), English corpus linguistics: Studies in honour of Jan Svartvik. London: Longman.Google Scholar
1991b. Towards probabilistic interpretations. In Eija Ventola (ed.), Functional and systemic linguistics: Approaches and uses, 39–62. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Horák, Aleš & Pavel Rychlý. 2013. Methods for detection of word usage over time. In Ondˇrej Herman & Vojtˇech Kováˇr (eds.), Proceedings of the seventh workshop on recent advances in Slavonic natural languages processing, RASLAN 2013, 79–85. Brno: Tribun EU.Google Scholar
Ilie, Cornelia. 2003. Discourse and metadiscourse in parliamentary debates. Journal of Language and Politics 2(1). 71–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jensen, Jacob, Ethan Kaplan, Suresh Naidu & Laurence Wilse-Samson. 2012. Political polarization and the dynamics of political language: Evidence from 130 years of partisan speech. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 43(2). 1–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jenset, Gard B. & Barbara McGillivray. 2017. Quantitative historical linguistics: A corpus framework. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kirvalidze, Nino & Nino Samnidze. 2016. Political discourse as a subject of interdisciplinary studies. Journal of Teaching and Education 5(1). 161–170.Google Scholar
Křen, Michal. 2017. Grammatical change: Trends in contemporary Czech newspapers. Journal of Linguistics/Jazykovedný casopis 68(2). 238–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kruger, Haidee, Bertus van Rooy & Adam Smith. 2019. Register change in the British and Australian Hansard (1901–2015). Journal of English Linguistics 47(3). 183–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 2008. Triggering Events. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Kortmann (eds.), Topics in English linguistics, Vol. 611, 11–54. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Li, Zuhe, Yangyu Fan, Bin Jiang, Tao Lei & Weihua Liu. 2019. A survey on sentiment analysis and opinion mining for social multimedia. Multimedia Tools and Applications 78(6). 6939–6967. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loerts, Hanneke, Wander Lowier & Bregtje Seton. 2020. Essential statistics for applied linguistics: Using R and JASP. London: Red Globe Press.Google Scholar
Mann, Henry B. 1945. Nonparametric tests against trend. Econometrica 13(3). 245–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R. 1992. English text: System and structure Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000. Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in English. In Susan Hunston & Geoff Thompson (eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse, 142–175. New York: OUP.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. & Peter R. R. White. 2005. Language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. 2006. Frequency profiles of some basic grammatical systems. In Geoff Thompson & Susan Hunston (eds.), System and orpus: Exploring connections, 103–142. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Militino, Ana E., Mehdi Moradi & Dolores Ugarte. 2020. On the performances of trend and change-point detection methods for remote sensing data. Remote Sens. 12(6). 1008–1033. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mulgan, Richard G. 1974. Aristotle’s doctrine that man is a political animal. Hermes 102(3). 438–445.Google Scholar
Nesbitt, Chris & Guenter Plum. 1988. Probabilities in a systemic-functional grammar: The clause complex in English. In Robin P. Fawcett & David J. Young (eds.), New developments in systemic linguistics, Vol. 21, 6–39. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Oteíza, Teresa & Claudia Castro. 2019. Dictatorship and the Cold War in official Chilean history textbooks. In Barbara Christophe, Peter Gautschi & Robert Thorp (eds.), The Cold War in the classroom: International perspectives on textbooks and memory practices, 221–247. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Owoyea, Oluwole & Matthew Dabrosb. 2017. The analysis of White House occupant and political polarization in the United States. Review of Social Sciences 2(4). 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Read, Jonathon & John Carroll. 2012. Annotating expressions of Appraisal in English. Language Resources and Evaluation 46(3). 421–447. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez-Vergara, Daniel. 2015. Clause combining in research articles in Spanish and English: A systemic-functional analysis. US-China Foreign Language 13(7). 471–482. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rokach, Lior. 2019. Ensemble learning: Pattern classification using ensemble methods (2nd edn.). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sheckels, Theodore F. 2000. When congress debates: A Bakhtinian paradigm. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Stadler, Kevin. 2016. Direction and directedness in language change: An evolutionary model of selection by trend-amplification. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh PhD thesis.
Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2005. New York, Dayton (Ohio), and the raw frequency fallacy. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1(2). 295–301. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steiner, Jürg, André Bächtiger, Markus Spörndli & Marco R. Steenbergen. 2004. Deliberative politics in action: Analyzing parliamentary discourse. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Su, Hang & Monika Bednarek. 2018. Bibliography of appraisal, stance and evaluation. Available online at [URL]
Taboada, Maite, Julian Brooke, Milan Tofiloski, Kimberly Voll & Manfred Stede. 2011. Lexicon-based methods for sentiment analysis. Computational Linguistics 37(2). 267–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taboada, Maite & Jack Grieve. 2004. Analyzing appraisal automatically. Paper presented at the AAAI Spring Symposium on Exploring Attitude and Affect in Text, Stanford.
Thornbury, Scott & Diana Slade. 2006. Conversation: From description to pedagogy. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Treimane, Laura. 2011. Analyzing parliamentary discourse: Systemic functional perspective. Kalbotyra 63(3). 78–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, Teun A. 1997. What is political discourse analysis. In Jan Blommaert & ‎Chris Bulcaen (eds.), Political Linguistics, 11–52. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004. Text and context of parliamentary debates. In Paul Bayley (ed.), 339–372. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006. Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society 17(3). 359–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vardanega, Moreno. 2016. Analysis of sentiment direction based on two centuries of the Hansard Debate Archive. Stirling: University of Stirling unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Vukovic, Milica. 2014. Strong epistemic modality in parliamentary discourse. Open Linguistics 11. 37–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vuković, Milica. 2015. Emphasisers in the UK parliamentary language: A diachronic and a synchronic perspective. Paper presented at the ICIFL5, Podgorica.
Załęska, Maria. 2012. Rhetoric and politics: Mapping the interrelations. In Maria Załęska (ed.), Rhetoric and politics: Mapping the interrelations, 1–19. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Zappavigna, Michele, Chris Cléirigh, Paul Dwyer & J. R. Martin. 2009. The coupling of gesture and phonology. In Monika Bednarek & J. R. Martin (eds.), New discourse on language: Functional perspectives on multimodality, identity, and affiliation, 237–266. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Cheng, Shi
2024. A review of interpersonal metafunction studies in systemic functional linguistics (2012–2022). Journal of World Languages 10:3 ► pp. 623 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 january 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.