A critical redesign of the attitude spectrum

Abstract This article explores the possibility of developing the attitude spectrum ( Martin & White 2005 ) into a comprehensive one for analyzing the evaluation of institutions in institutional discourse. Specifically, it considers explicit evaluation (via inscribed lexis) and implicit evaluation (via lexical metaphor, nested inscribed lexis, flagging cues, attribution resources and factual account) as contributing to the construction of institutional identity and grades these on a scalar cline. The identification and grading of evaluative strategies is concretized by comparing the clarity of attitudinal stance, the distance the reader needs to range across the text for evaluative interpretation and the amount of co-textual/extra-textual information required for evaluative inference. To make possible the unitization and quantification of implicit evaluation, this article further explores variations of lexical metaphor, flagging cues and attribution resources in invoking positive/negative assessments of institutions, and proposes a focus on material processes in analyzing the evaluativeness of ‘factual accounts’. From a theoretical perspective, this article suggests the possibility of positioning evaluative strategies on a scalar cline by following specific principles. It also offers methodological contributions by specifying how to approach implicit evaluation in empirical studies of institutional identity.