"evaluative stance" is a correct and usable phrase in written English.
It refers to a person's position or perspective on a particular issue or topic, judging its value or worth. Example: "The author's evaluative stance towards technology was evident in their scathing critique of its negative impact on society."
This paper uses aspects of Jurgen Habermas's critical theory of societal development as the evaluative stance for the introduction, application and implications of evaluation of teaching quality in universities.
In discussing these topics, the capacity to express an evaluative stance effectively is essential.
A more serious objection is to the evaluative stance of hedonism itself.
Here of course, discussion on the nature of evaluative stance and its relationship to invoking attitude shades into the realm of the interpersonal in general.
These refinements contribute to the ongoing development of the Appraisal framework and provide a resource for enhancing the effectiveness of expressions of evaluative stance for speakers of English as a second or additional language.
Example 1 below serves to illustrate some of these groupings of resources (mechanisms or 'strategies'), and the challenges which face the analyst attempting to account for the evaluative stance invoked in any one section of a longer piece.
This means that analysts often need to account for their own readings of attitudinal categories when conducting research of evaluative stances, and thus the concerns of the present paper centre on how categories of attitude can be more precisely justified.
The use of intertextual references in this excerpt support the explicit evaluative lexis used, and point to the fact that engagement devices, rather than specifically attitudinal lexis, operate in these texts to invoke evaluative stances towards not only people and objects, but also propositions (c.f. Hunston &Thompson 2000, Ch1).
Potential readings of irony also figure in the less explicit end of the spectrum, for example, Alba-Juez and Attardo (2014: 93) argue that "the concept of evaluation is crucially attached to that of verbal irony", and other theorists such as Louw (1993), Clift (1999), and Partington (2007) have all argued for the relationship between use of irony and potential evaluative stances.
This again relates to item (6d) in the spectrum of invocations set out in Fig. 2, where rhetorical patterns can be used as resources for implying an attitude, as well as item (3) where so-called constitutive intertextuality, or what (Lemke 1995) refers to as compositional practices within thematic formations, allow comparison-contrast and evaluative stances to be fore-fronted.
Martin (2001) highlights the relationship between higher order Theme and evaluation, and the ways in which a photograph in hyper-Theme position may function as an evaluative Theme, orienting readers to and naturalizing the stance from which the ensuing verbal Rheme can be read.
