APPRECIATION is the system by which evaluations are made of products and processes. The account set out here relies entirely on the work of Rothery, developed initially during research into the language of the visual arts for various NSW Disadvantaged Schools Program projects, as well as subsequent analysis by Rothery and Stenglin of the role of evaluation in secondary school English essays (Rothery and Stenglin in press). (For a review see Martin 1997: 24-26). APPRECIATION encompasses values which fall under the general heading of aesthetics, as well as a non-aesthetic category of `social valuation' which includes meanings such as significant and harmful. APPRECIATION can be thought of as the system by which human feelings, either positive or negative, towards products, processes and entities are institutionalised as a set of evaluations. Thus, whereas JUDGEMENT evaluates human behaviours, APPRECIATION typically evaluates texts, more abstract constructs such as plans and policies, as well as manufactured and natural objects. Humans may also be evaluated by means of APPRECIATION, rather than JUDGEMENT, when viewed more as entities than as participants who behave - thus, a beautiful woman, a key figure.
Rothery and Stenglin (in press) propose three subcategories under which appreciations may be grouped: reaction, composition and valuation. According to Rothery & Stenglin, reaction is `interpersonally tuned. It describes the emotional impact of the work on the reader/listener/viewer.' Thus, under reaction, the product/process is evaluated in terms of the impact it makes or its quality. For example:
Under composition, the product or process is evaluated according to its makeup, according to whether it conforms to various conventions of formal organisation. As Rothery and Stenglin state, `Composition is textually tuned. It describes the texture of a work in terms of its complexity or detail.' For example:
Under the subcategory of `social value', the object, product or process is evaluated according to various social conventions. This domain is very closely tied to field in that the social valuation of one field will not be applicable or relevant in another. Thus we would expect that the set of social values which have currency in, for example, the visual arts, might not have extensive application in the world of politics. In the context of the media texts under which much of this theory was developed, the key values were those of social significance or salience (whether the phenomenon was important, noteworthy, significant, crucial etc) and of harm (whether the phenomenon was damaging, dangerous, unhealthy etc).
