2.2.4 Phase 4: event 3 – performance (Record)
The fourth phase maintains the ATTITUDINAL stance of phase 3. In addition, the post author Contracts the dialogic space for alternatives:
E.J. Everyone said (Con: pro: end) I did a good (Jud: cap +) job. … They [Grammy and Grampy] (Con: pro: end) liked (Aff: sat +) it a lot.
Each responding comment aligns with the evaluative position of the author, as well as each other, seen in the harmony of ATTITUDE (Jud: cap +). In addition, GRADUATION is achieved using adverbials (‘such’ and ‘so’), graded core words (‘great’) and repetition of punctuation, strengthens the evaluative stance of commenters. Further intensification occurs across the post and comments clauses through the repetition of evaluative lexemes (‘good’, ‘job’):
Grammy You did such (For: int) a good (Jud: cap +) job.
Erin I know (Exp: ent) you did a great (Jud: cap +; For: int) job! Loni-Loo i bet (Exp: ent) you did sooooo!!!!!! (For: int) good (Jud: cap +)
I suggest the comments align with both the post and each other so strongly not only because the space is Contracted, but also because familial solidarity is put at risk by not conforming to the evaluative ‘line’. Further, the temporal sequence of comments is such that the first commenter (Grammy) has a large amount of evaluative sway, as both eyewitness and family matriarch. Grammy’s affirmation and upscaling of E.J.’s evaluation is a powerful stance to counter, and further strengthened as subsequent commenters fall into line. In other words, reader-commenters align positions to maintain solidarity with the post author, as much as they do so to maintain solidarity with each other. This results in the strong construal of E.J. as a capable child in both post and comments.
Commenters who did not see E.J.’s performance also achieve familial bonding, this time through the alignment of ATTITUDE (Aff: inc +):
Erin I wish (Aff: inc +) I could have seen you in your play! Loni-Loo i wish (Aff: inc +) i could have been their with you and see you shine (Jud: cap +) !!
Lynell Wish (Aff: inc +) I could have been there.
2.2.5 Phase 5: re-orientation (Re-orientation stage of recount)
The fifth phase of the text, re-orientation, does not make use of the resources of APPRAISAL in the verbiage. This phase is realised in and by the post on its own.
2.2.6 Phase 6: judgement (Judgement stage of recount)
The final phase is realised by the evaluative resources of both post and comments. Here, E.J. maintains positive JUDGEMENT of his own behavior (propriety). E.J.
canvasses the opinion of the readership, but also limits the response such that it aligns with that of the author. Indeed, Lynell reinforces E.J.’s stance through reiteration, expressing satisfaction about his behaviour, and entertaining and rejecting the alternative.
E.J. Do you think I am a scary (Jud: prop –) bear? (Exp: ent) I was a nice (Jud: prop +) bear.
Lynell Glad (Aff: sat +) to hear that you were a nice (Jud: prop +) bear. I can't imagine (Exp: ent) you being mean (Jud: prop +).
The ensuing comments realise the social goals of building solidarity between family members and the co-construction of E.J. as a capable and good child.
The phase concludes with three comments regarding E.J.’s costume, in which positive AFFECT and APPRECIATION is expressed, and, in which alternative expressions are restricted by the use of endorsement:
E.J. [image] Every one liked (Aff: sat +) my costume best. (Con: pro: end)
Lynell E.J. Your costume is totally (For: int) the best. (App: qual +) Where did you get it?
HoLLy you look like one awesome (App: qual +; For: int) bear! what a cool (App: qual +) costume!
Loni-Loo you really (For: int) stand out (App: qual +) ej!!!!!!!! (For: int)
3 A case for modal hybridity
Baseball Kid uses language in its written mode in a similar way to how it might be
used in paper-based generic instances; this is made apparent by the resemblance of posts to generic school-based written recounts and the dominance of declaratives across the blog. However, analyses of Baseball Kid from a dialogic perspective reveal speech-like moves between author and reader, and the instantiation of genre in which post and comments combined constitutes an instance of text. The post drives prosodic realisation of Teddy Bear, whereby the post author sets up the evaluative prosody and deploys ENGAGEMENT resources to position his readers. In this space, readers are encouraged to comment, but are also constrained in the evaluations they might make, lest familial solidarity be put at risk. Through dialogic interactions, readers and post author collaboratively construe the author as capable, good and tenacious, and thus co-construct the evaluations in the text as instance of recount.
Writing in an online space that incorporates comments perhaps necessarily adopts some of the affordances of the mode of speech. Rather than characterise language as written or spoken in this context I suggest, then, the deployment of language as a semiotic resource in blogs displays modal hybridity. In other words, the linguistic ‘modes of representation’ of writing and speaking, as described by Kress (2005)8, are
merged or hybridised in blogs. By characterising the blog as modally hybrid, I account for the impact of the technological affordance of commenting on the roles played by language in blogs.
8 As opposed to mode as register in SFL, described, for example, by Hasan (1985) in terms of language role, process sharing and medium, and channel.
References
Adlington, R. (2016). Young children’s online authoring: the Techno-semiotic co-construction of blogs (Doctoral thesis, Australian Catholic University). Retrieved from
http://researchbank.acu.edu.au/theses/618/.
Domingo, M., Jewitt, C. & Kress, G. (2015). Multimodal social semiotics: writing in online contexts. The Routledge Handbook of Literary Studies. London: Routledge.
Eggins, S. (2004). An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Continuum. Eggins, S. & Slade, D. (1997). Analysing Casual Conversation. London: Cassell.
Gillen, J. & Merchant, G. (2013). Contact calls: Twitter as a dialogic social and linguistic practice. Language Sciences, 35, 47-58. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2012.04.015
Halliday, M. A. K. & Matthiessen, C. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd ed.). London: Hodder Arnold.
Hasan, R. (1985). Part B. In M. A. K. Halliday & R. Hasan (Eds.), Language, Context, and Text (pp. 52-118). Victoria: Deakin University Press.
Humphrey, S., Droga, L. & Feez, S. (2012). Grammar and Meaning. Sydney: Primary English Teaching Association of Australia.
Kress, G. (2005). Gains and losses: new forms of texts, knowledge, and learning. Computers and Composition, 22, 5-22.
Macken-Horarik, M. (2003). Appraisal and the special instructiveness of narrative. Text, 23(3), 285- 312.
Martin, J. R. & Rose, D. (2007). Working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond the Clause (2nd ed.). London: Continuum.
Martin, J. R. & White, P. R. R. (2005). The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan.