Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Attitude/Judgement
Judgement: assessing human
behaviour
Explicit Judgement
Following the work cited in the Overview Section as the source of these materials
(see, for example, Iedema, Feez, and White 1994, Martin 1995 or Martin 2000), the
term ‘Judgement’ has been chosen to reference attitudinal evaluation in which human
behaviour is negatively or positively assessed by reference to some set of social
norms. Where Judgement is explicitly indicated (see earlier discussion) we encounter
terms such as corrupt, virtuously, dishonest, murderous, tyrant, bully, hero, betray,
obstinate, indefatigable, abuse, defraud, courageously, skilled, genius, dunce,
stupidity, foolishly, eccentric, maverick. Here the rather general term, ‘Judgement’ has
been taken from common parlance and given a more specialised or technical meaning.
In a sense, then, we have made a specialist or technical term – ‘Judgement’ – out of a
term which didn’t have a particularly precise meaning in everyday, vernacular
language. So that there’s no confusion, I’ll use capital letters when I’m using
JUDGEMENT, as a technical, linguistic term. I’m doing this for convenience and clarity,
so that it’s clear when I’m using the term within the specific linguistic framework .
Under JUDGEMENT, we’re concerned with language which criticises or praises, which
condemns or applauds the behaviour – the actions, deeds, sayings, beliefs,
motivations etc - of human individuals and groups.
Perhaps the most obvious examples of JUDGEMENT involve assessments by reference to
systems of legality/illegality, morality/immorality or politeness/impoliteness – that is
to say, there is an assessment that rules of behaviour, more or less explicitly codified
in the culture, have either been upheld or breached. That is to say, such JUDGEMENTS
involve an assertion that some set of religious, moral or legal rules or regulations are
at issue. They involve assessments of morality or legality. Here, for example, we find
such terms as immoral, virtuous, lewd, sinful, lascivious, innocent, unjust, fair-
minded, law-abiding, murderous, cruel, brutal, compassionate, caring, dishonest,
honest, deceptive and fraudulent. Such assessments, obviously, can carry a heavy
weight socially.
Other values of JUDGEMENT involve evaluations by which the person judged will be
lowered or raised in the esteem of their community, but which do not have the same
legal, religious or moral implications as the first set. Here we have assessments of
normality (eccentric, maverick, conventional, traditional etc), of competence (skilled,
genius, knowledgeable, stupid, dunce, brilliant, incompetent, powerful, feeble) and of
psychological disposition (brave, cowardly, determined, obstinate, zealous, stubborn,
committed, lazy etc). These values arguably do not carry quite the same social weight
as the first set - negative values of this set will see you lowered in the estimation of
society but won’t typically see you in trouble with the law or with your priest.
Judgement and reader/respondent positioning
It is vital to stress JUDGEMENT, as a system of attitudinal positioning, is, by definition,
shaped by the particular cultural and ideological situation in which it operates. The
M e a n s o f b y w h ic h JU D G E M E N T m a y b e a c tiv a te d
e x p lic it ( in s c r ib e )
T h e c h i ld r e n w e r e r u d e ly t a lk i n g .
p r o v o k e ( s o m e e v a lu a t iv e la n g u a g e )
A lt h o u g h h e a s k e d f o r q u ie t , t h e c h il d r e n k e p t o n t a lk in g .
im p lic it
e v o k e ( 'f a c t u a l ' t o k e n s )
T h e c h i ld r e n t a lk e d w h il e h e w a s p r e s e n t in g t h e le s s o n .
Joining the euro would only lock us into that problem - not solve it.
There's a vague potential here for a token of negative JUDGEMENT. If we were "locked
into that problem", the we would be incapacitated, hence a potential negative
assessment can arise. Similarly, anyone advocating joining the euro might, thus, by
implication be guilty of recklessness or stupidity. There is, however, nothing
explicitly JUDGEMENTAL here.
1
The name of this tax is, in fact, the "Climate Change Levy".
Iedema, R., S. Feez, and P.R.R. White. 1994. Media Literacy, Sydney, Disadvantaged
Schools Program, NSW Department of School Education.