The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Beyond Exchange: APPRAISAL Systems in English
Abstract
In this chapter Martin examines evaluative lexis expressing the speaker or writer’s opinion on, very broadly, the good/bad parameter. His study is set within the systemic functional linguistic tradition; and the account is therefore couched in terms of systems: sets of options which are available to the speaker or writer covering the meanings that can be and are typically expressed in particular contexts, and the linguistic means of expressing them.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance
WHITE, P. R. R. (2003) · Text - Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse · doi:10.1515/text.2003.011 · Cited by 567
Change of Attitude? A Diachronic Study of Stance
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (. (2016) · Written Communication · doi:10.1177/0741088316650399 · Cited by 268
Gray, B., & Biber, D. (2012) · Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres · doi:10.1057/9781137030825_2 · Cited by 136
Exploring Valued Patterns of Stance in Upper-Level Student Writing in the Disciplines
Lancaster, Z. (2014) · Written Communication · doi:10.1177/0741088313515170 · Cited by 88
Epistemic stance and the construction of knowledge in science writing: A diachronic corpus study
Poole, R., Gnann, A., & Hahn-Powell, G. (2019) · Journal of English for Academic Purposes · doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100784 · Cited by 71
Metadata
- Authors
- Martin, J. R.
- Venue
- Evaluation in Text
- Publisher
- Oxford University PressOxford
- Published
- 2000-02-24
- Pages
- 142-175
- OpenAlex
- W148816875
- Cited by
- 1,168
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 700.49
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Beyond Exchange: APPRAISAL Systems in English. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/oso/9780198238546.003.0008
- The paper
- Martin, J. R. (2000). Beyond Exchange: APPRAISAL Systems in English. Evaluation in Text. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198238546.003.0008
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
