The attitudinal sub-system of JUDGEMENT encompasses meanings which serve to evaluate human behaviour positively and negatively by reference to a set of institutionalised norms. Thus JUDGEMENT is involved when the speaker provides an assessment of some human participant with reference to that participant's acts or dispositions (The exposition here relies primarily on the work from the media project of the Disadvantaged Schools Program (DSP) detailed in Iedema, Feez and White 1994.) The social norms at risk with these JUDGEMENT assessments take the form of rules and regulations or of less precisely defined social expectations and systems of value. Thus, under JUDGEMENT we may assess behaviour as moral or immoral, as legal or illegal, as socially acceptable or unacceptable, as laudable or deplorable, as normal or abnormal and so on. The DSP materials propose two broad categories of JUDGEMENT and five narrower sub-types within these two categories, which will explored in a later section. Values can be realised as,
Like AFFECT, values of JUDGEMENT have either positive or negative status - virtuous versus immoral, honest versus deceitful, brave versus cowardly, smart versus stupid, normal versus weird.
Like AFFECT, meanings can be located on a sliding scale of force or intensity from low to high values - he's an OK player, a skilled player, a brilliant player
In such instances, the value of JUDGEMENT is explicitly expressed by means of a particular lexical choice - skilfully, corruptly, lazily etc. Following the DSP material, such are classed as `inscribed' expressions of JUDGEMENT since the evaluation is overtly `inscribed' in the text through the vocabulary choice. The picture is complicated, however, by the possibility that the JUDGEMENT assessment may be more indirectly evoked or implied - rather than explicitly inscribed - by what can be termed `tokens' of JUDGEMENT. Under such tokens, JUDGEMENT values are triggered by superficially neutral, ideational meanings which nevertheless have the capacity in the culture to evoke judgemental responses (depending upon the reader's social/cultural/ideological reader position). Thus a commentator may inscribe a JUDGEMENT value of negative capacity by accusing the government of `incompetence' or, alternatively, evoke the same value by means of a token such as `the government has not laid the foundations for long term growth'. The question of `tokens' of JUDGEMENT will be taken up when we return to JUDGEMENT in detail.
I am disappointed [affect] and ashamed [affect] that two of our most admired and respected [affect] sportsmen could behave in such a manner. To play for your country is an honour and a privilege, not a right.
Those who are chosen to represent Australia should not only be talented [JUDGEMENT] but they should be above reproach [JUDGEMENT]. Sport is supposed to teach honour, fair play, teamwork, leadership and social skills [JUDGEMENT]. It is not supposed to "create" or support greed and egos [JUDGEMENT]. Gambling is not what we want our children to be learning from their heroes [JUDGEMENT] and mentors. [The West Australian - 11/12/98: 12, letter to the editor, Jennifer Black, Riverdale]
