ABSTRACT
Chapter 5 looks at how evaluation contributes to editorial argumentation. Editorials are very much about argumentation; they seek to evaluate events overtly and persuade readers. To conduct argumentation, editorials employ a wide range of overt markers of persuasion, many of them evaluation-loaded. This interplay between evaluation and argumentation is evident in at least three major discourse functions typically performed in editorials (Sections 5.3–5.5). Section 5.1 outlines the main characteristics of editorials and discusses several terms related to the general direction of this chapter (discourse structure, persuasive devices and argumentation). Section 5.2 sketches the overall distribution of different types of evaluative markers in the SCMP editorial sub-corpus. Sections 5.3–5.5 each focus on one major discourse function typically performed in editorials. Section 5.3 considers how evaluation is used to state the main theme through two main types of editorial headlines: hortatory headlines and summative headlines. Section 5.4 examines three main ways in which evaluation is employed to comment on situations in events: mixing praise and criticism, connecting emotionally with readers and developing stages of an argument. Section 5.5 looks at how evaluation is used to make recommendations, with the focus on how it is deftly employed to adjust the evaluative force.
