Corso di Laurea Magistrale in

(1)

Università degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia D

IPARTIMENTO DI STUDI LINGUISTICI E CULTURALI

Corso di Laurea Magistrale in

L ANGUAGES FOR COMMUNICATION IN

INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISES AND ORGANIZATIONS

The language of Evaluation in Editorials:

The Trump case

Prova finale di:

Ilaria Landucci Relatore:

Silvia Cacchiani

Correlatore Giuliana Diani

Anno Accademico 2019/2020

(2)

(3)

RIASSUNTO

L’obiettivo di questo elaborato è quello di analizzare uno dei mezzi di comunicazione più efficaci e potenti a nostra disposizione, che ci permette di interagire in quanto individui sociali che condividono una stessa comunità di valori e principi: il linguaggio valutativo nella sua forma scritta. In particolare, la ricerca si concentra sui modelli di interazione tra comunicazione e valutazione, analizzando le modalità in cui individui ed entità esprimono opinioni e giudizi riguardo a questioni generalmente condivise, i metodi attraverso i quali l’informazione viene trasmessa a lettori potenziali, e il processo tramite il quale significati e risorse linguistiche vengono modificati con l’obiettivo di provocare una reazione nel destinatario.

Pertanto, la ricerca intende fornire uno studio dettagliato delle nozioni di “valutazione” e di “linguaggio valutativo”, elencando possibili definizioni e metodi di analisi tradizionali e applicandoli ad un genere scritto che meglio li rappresenta per definizione: il linguaggio giornalistico di opinione. Nello specifico, l’analisi si concentra sul genere degli editoriali delle sezioni di opinione, in quanto rappresentano uno dei canali di comunicazione più accessibili e immediati tra individui che condividono una stessa società, valori e principi. A questo proposito, l’argomento scelto come oggetto di analisi valutativa è il presidente statunitense Donald Trump, considerato una delle persone più influenti e potenti del pianeta a livello politico, economico e sociale. A tal riguardo, è stato creato un corpus di 120 editoriali selezionati sia da testate giornalistiche che lo condannano pubblicamente (New York Times e The Guardian) sia da giornali che lo supportano apertamente (Wall Street Journal, New York Post), con l’intento di svolgere un’analisi imparziale ed equilibrata.

Il metodo di ricerca adottato è quello dell’Appraisal Theory, sviluppata dagli studiosi Martin e White (2005), il quale comprende tre domini semantici in grado di analizzare i parametri più significativi del linguaggio valutativo: il dominio definito Attitude, che a sua volta si occupa alla sfera delle emozioni (Affect), dell’etica (Judgment), e dell’estetica (Appreciation); il dominio dell’Engagement, che cerca interazione e allineamento tra voci alternative presenti nel testo e lettori potenziali, il quale comprende a sua volta le categorie di Dialogic Contraction e Dialogic Expansion; il dominio chiamato Graduation, che si occupa della graduazione di significati, in particolar modo categorizzando, enfatizzando o

(4)

minimizzando termini ed espressioni, grazie alle categorie di Focus e Force. La teoria è stata applicata inizialmente da un punto di vista quantitativo mediante l’uso di AntConc, uno strumento di analisi linguistica quantitativa, ed in seguito prendendo in considerazione una prospettiva qualitativa, analizzando e mettendo a confronto i dati degli editoriali che compongono il corpus.

I risultati dello studio hanno rivelato differenze significative nell’uso di linguaggio valutativo: per quanto riguarda il dominio di Attitude, gli autori che scrivono a sfavore di Donald Trump utilizzano un numero notevolmente più elevato di espressioni di Affect, che sono per la maggior parte realizzazioni negative della categoria di In/security (per esempio threat, fear, danger, terrorism, crisis), con l’obiettivo di provocare nei lettori sentimenti di paura e di sfiducia. Al contrario, i giornalisti che supportano Trump hanno impiegato un numero più elevato di espressioni positive delle categorie di Judgment e Appreciation, con lo scopo di lodare e costruire consenso nei confronti del presidente, per esempio mediante l’uso di giudizi positivi dei sottogruppi di Social Esteem (can, win, victory, success) e di Social Sanction (honest, right, good) e di apprezzamenti positivi (remarkably, excellent, great), mirati ad enfatizzare i successi, le capacità e i principi morali di Trump.

Analizzando il dominio di Engagement, abbiamo potuto identificare modelli linguistici similari per quanto riguarda l’uso frequente della categoria di Dialogic Contraction, suggerendo che in entrambi i corpora gli autori preferiscono adottare uno stile che tende a rifiutare punti di vista e opinioni alternativi (per esempio dissentendo e negando fortemente affermazioni tramite espressioni quali no, not, but, yet oppure limitandone il raggio di azione con realizzazioni quali of course, surely, clearly, certainly, show, prove, demonstrate, confirm e quindi presentando le proprie opinioni come attendibili e certe), piuttosto che favorire eventuali dibattiti riguardanti le questioni presentate negli articoli. Ciononostante, abbiamo identificato divergenze significative negli editoriali che sono a sfavore di Trump, i quali presentano con frequenza un maggiore livello di apertura nei confronti di voci alternative e contrarie mediante espressioni di possibilità (could, may, might, likely, it appears), che indicano come le opinioni espresse siano presentate al pubblico come una possibilità tra tante, e lo invitano quindi a partecipare al dibattito. Al contrario, gli autori che appoggiano il presidente tendono a distanziarsi dalle voci alternative che vengono introdotte negli articoli mediante l’uso di citazioni e discorsi indiretti, con espressioni quali claim, say, call, demand, mostrando quindi dissenso nei confronti delle voci citate.

Infine, per quanto riguarda il dominio della Graduation, i giornalisti che condannano Trump fanno un utilizzo nettamente maggiore di realizzazioni che hanno l’obiettivo di

(5)

enfatizzare espressioni negative di Appreciation (ad esempio intensificazioni quali very + sostantivo con accezione negativa e worst) per infondere emozioni e sentimenti negativi e ostili nelle menti dei lettori, mentre gli autori che sono a favore della presidenza repubblicana tendono sia a condannare l’inadeguatezza dell’opposizione (many + sostantivo con accezione negativa), sia ad enfatizzare espressioni positive di Judgment (per esempio the most + sostantivo con accezione positiva e best) con l’obiettivo di sottolineare i tratti positivi e i successi di Trump, e quindi convincere i lettori a mostrare consenso.

Alla luce di quanto detto in precedenza, possiamo affermare che i giornalisti che criticano la persona di Trump tendono ad adottare una posizione offensiva, con lo scopo di creare una comunità di sentimenti e sensazioni negative che siano condivise nei confronti della sua presidenza. Mediante un uso frequente di espressioni linguistiche sfavorevoli, intendono rafforzare la già esistente e diffusa percezione negativa nei confronti della sua carica presidenziale, aspettandosi quindi un pubblico che condivide già da tempo questa posizione.

Al contrario, gli autori che supportano Donald Trump tendono ad adottare una posizione difensiva, cercando di creare una comunità di empatia e persuadere quei lettori che condividono visioni contrastanti a cambiare idea, andando quindi alla ricerca di un forte allineamento di idee e consenso. Inoltre, in entrambi i corpora i giornalisti tendono a rifiutare punti di vista e voci alternativi, cercando con maggiore intensità un allineamento di posizione con i lettori potenziali, con la differenza che coloro che non supportano Trump concedono uno spazio più ampio e invitano all’interpretazioni delle proprie prese di posizione, mentre i sostenitori del presidente non solo dissentono, ma non concedono spazio a nessun dibattito né ad opinioni che vadano contro le proprie per quanto riguarda le questioni trattate negli articoli.

(6)

(7)

ABSTRACT

The thesis is concerned with the written language of Evaluation, one of the most powerful tools of communication that allows us to interact as social individuals of a shared community of values and beliefs. In particular, it is concerned with the ways in which communication and evaluation interact together, taking into account how people and entities express evaluations, opinions and judgments over commonly-shared matters, the methods through which information can be conveyed to putative readers and why, how meanings and linguistic resources can be manipulated and modified with the aim to invoke a reaction in potential audiences.

For these reasons, the aim of this study is to provide an in-depth analysis of the notions of

“evaluation” and “evaluative language”, by outlining linguistic definitions and approaches that have dealt with such concepts according to tradition and by applying them to a written genre that best exemplifies them: journalistic language. Precisely, the analysis will be centered around editorials of opinion sections, since they embody one of the most accessible and immediate channels of communication between individuals living in a society with commonly-shared values and beliefs. As a matter of fact, the topic of the evaluative investigation is U.S.’s President Donald Trump, representing one of the most influential people on the planet regarding the political, the economic and the social sphere. In this respect, we created a corpus of 120 editorials selected both from newspapers that publicly condemn the President (The New York Times, The Guardian) and from publications that openly support him (The Wall Street Journal, the New York Post), in order to keep the analysis as impartial as possible.

The methodology chosen for the investigation is the Appraisal Theory devised by scholars Martin and White (2005), seeing as it is comprised of three main features, taking into consideration all the most significant parameters of evaluative language: the feature of Attitude, concerning the realms of emotions (Affect), ethics (Judgment) and aesthetics (Appreciation); the feature of Engagement, negotiating interaction and alignment with alternative voices and potential audiences, which is itself comprised of the sub-features of Dialogic Contraction and Dialogic Expansion; the feature of Graduation, regarding the ways in which meanings can be graduated, namely categorized, emphasized or lessened (thanks to

(8)

the sub-features of Focus and Force). The method has been applied both from a quantitative point of view, thanks to AntConc, a freeware toolkit for linguistic and corpus analysis, and from a qualitative perspective, analyzing and comparing the quantitative data between the corpora.

The results of the investigation revealed several differences in the use of evaluative language: as far as the feature of Attitude is concerned, writers who criticize Donald Trump employ a much higher number of expressions of Affect, which are namely negative realizations of the sub-feature of In/security (e.g. threat, fear, danger, terrorism, crisis), with the aim to invoke fear and distrust in the potential readers. On the contrary, writers of newspapers who support Trump reveal a higher number of positive realizations of the expressions of Judgment and Appreciation with the intent to praise and build consensus towards the presidency, for instance thanks to the positive judgmental expressions of Social Esteem (e.g. can, win, victory, success) and Social Sanction (e.g. honest, right, good) and the additional positive appreciations (e.g. remarkably, excellent, great), all aimed at emphasizing Trump’s capacities, successes and right morals.

With respect to the feature of Engagement, we were able to identify similar patterns in the frequent employment of the sub-feature of Dialogic Contraction, suggesting how in both corpora writers prefer a style that mostly rejects opposite viewpoints and opinions (for instance by directly disagreeing and denying assertions with realizations such as no, not, but, yet, and limiting their scope with the use of of course, surely, clearly, certainly, show, prove, demonstrate, confirm, and therefore presenting their personal opinions as reliable and legitimate), instead of favoring eventual debates on the matters under consideration.

Nonetheless, we could identify significant differences in editorials who are against the president, that often show a slightly higher level of acceptance towards alternative voices through expressions of possibility (e.g. could, may, might, likely, it appears), indicating that the evaluations expressed are presented to the public as one possibility out of many, and therefore invite the public to take part in the debate. On the contrary, writers who show support to Trump tend to distance themselves from alternative voices introduced in the articles through the use of quotations and reported speech, with expressions such as claim, say, call, demand, thus disagreeing with the voices reported.

Finally, as far as the feature of Graduation is concerned, writers that condemn Trump employ a much higher number of expressions with the intent to maximize negative realizations of Appreciation (e.g. intensifications like very + negative noun and worst) aimed at instilling negative and hostile feelings and emotions in the readers’ minds, whereas writers

(9)

who are in favor of the president tend to employ negative realizations with the intent to underline the opposition’s flaws (e.g. many + negative noun) and to emphasize positive realizations of Judgment (e.g. the most + positive noun and best), in order to highlight Trump’s successes and positive characteristics and persuade audiences to show consensus.

Therefore, in light of the results outlined above, we can state that journalists who criticize the figure of Trump tend to adopt a much more offensive stance, in order to build a community of shared negative feelings towards Trump’s presidency. With a frequent employment of negative language, they aim to reinforce the already widespread negative perception surrounding his office, thus expecting an audience that is already aligned with said view. On the contrary, pro-Trump writers tend to endorse a more defensive stance, wanting to create an empathetic community and persuade non-aligned and resistant readers into changing their minds, therefore looking for a stronger alignment. Additionally, in both corpora writers have the tendency to reject alternative viewpoints and voices, looking for a strong negotiation of alignment with potential audiences, with the difference that those who are against Trump allow more room to interpretation of their opinions, whereas authors who support Trump do not only disagree, but also leave no room for debate and opposite opinions towards the topics addressed.

(10)

(11)

RESUMEN

El objetivo principal del presente trabajo es analizar uno de los medios de comunicación más eficaces e influyentes a nuestra disposición, que nos permite interactuar en cuanto individuos sociales que comparten la misma comunidad de valores y principios: el lenguaje escrito de la evaluación. Precisamente, la investigación se centra en los modelos de interacción entre comunicación y evaluación, analizando las formas en las que individuos y organismos expresan opiniones y juicios con respecto a temas comunes, a métodos mediante los que la información se transmite a lectores potenciales, y al proceso por el cual se modifican los significados y los recursos lingüísticos con el objetivo de causar una reacción en el receptor.

Por lo tanto, la investigación se propone ofrecer un estudio detallado del concepto de

“lenguaje de la evaluación”, enseñando posibles definiciones y métodos de análisis tradicionales para aplicarlos al género textual que más los representa: el lenguaje periodístico de opinión. En particular, el análisis se centra en el género de los editoriales de la sección de opinión, dado que se caracterizan como uno de los canales de comunicación más accesibles entre individuos que comparten la misma sociedad, los mismos valores y principios. Por tanto, el tema elegido como objeto de análisis es el presidente de Estados Unidos Donald Trump, considerado como una de las personas más influyentes del mundo a nivel político, económico y social. En este respecto, hemos construido un corpus de 120 editoriales seleccionados de periódicos estadounidenses e ingleses que lo condenan públicamente (New York Times y The Guardian) tanto como de periódicos que lo apoyan abiertamente (Wall Street Journal y New York Post), con el propósito de realizar un análisis que sea imparcial y neutral.

El método de investigación que hemos adoptado es la Appraisal Theory (literalmente

“Teoría de la Evaluación”), ideada por los estudiosos Martin y White (2005), la que consta de tres dominios semánticos capaces de analizar los parámetros más significativos del lenguaje de la evaluación: el dominio de Atttiude, que se ocupa de la esfera emocional (Affect), de la ética (Judgment) y de la estética (Appreciation); el dominion de Engagement, que busca interacción y alineación entre voces alternativas presentes en el texto y lectores potenciales, y que está formado a su vez por las categorías de Dialogic Contraction y de Dialogic Expansion; el dominio de Graduation, que tiene el objetivo de graduar significados,

(12)

precisamente clasificando, enfatizando o minimizando términos y expresiones gracias a las categorías de Focus y Force. La Teoría ha sido aplicada desde dos puntos de vistas: de un punto de vista cuantitativo mediante AntConc, una herramienta informática de análisis lingüística cuantitativa, y de uno cualitativo, es decir analizando y comparando los datos de los dos grupos de editoriales.

Los resultados del estudio revelan diferencias significativas en el uso de lenguaje de evaluación: en lo que concierne al dominio de Attitude, los periodistas que critican a Donald Trump emplean un número mucho más elevado de expresiones de Affect, que en la mayoría de los casos pertenecen a la subcategoría negativa de In/security (por ejemplo threat, fear, danger, terrorism, crisis), con el objetivo de infundir en los lectores sentimientos de miedo y desconfianza. En cambio, los periodistas que apoyan a Trump emplean un número más elevado de expresiones positivas de las categorías de Judgment y Appreciation, con el propósito de elogiar y construir apoyo hacia el presidente, por ejemplo mediante el uso de juicios positivos de las subcategorías de Social Esteem (can, win, victory, success) y de agradecimientos positivos (remarkably, excellent, great) con el fin de enfatizar los éxitos, capacidades y principios morales de Trump.

En lo que respecta al dominio de Engagement, hemos detectado un uso similar y frecuente de la categoría de Dialogic Contraction, lo que sugiere que en ambos corpus los autores prefieren adoptar un estilo que rechaza puntos de vista y opiniones alternativos (por ejemplo disentiendo y negando afirmaciones mediante el uso de expresiones como no, not, but, yet o limitándolos con términos como of course, surely, clearly, certainly, show, prove, demonstrate, confirm, y por tanto presentando sus opiniones como fiables y legítimas), en lugar de dar espacio a eventuales debates sobre las cuestiones tratadas en los artículos. Sin embargo, hemos notado diferencias significativas en los editoriales que critican a Trump, que presentan una mentalidad más abierta hacia voces alternativas y disonantes gracias a expresiones de posibilidad (could, may, might, likely, it appears), con el objetivo de presentar sus propias opiniones como una posibilidad entre muchas y por tanto invitar los lectores a participar en el debate. Por el contrario, los autores que apoyan a Trump tienden a distanciarse de las voces alternativas introducidas en los artículos mediante el uso de referencias y discurso indirecto, empleando expresiones como claim, say, call, demand y disintiendo firmemente con ellas.

Por último, con respecto a la categoría de Graduation, los periodistas que condenan a Trump emplean un número más elevado de expresiones que tienen la finalidad de enfatizar téerminos negativos de Appreciation (por ejemplo intensificaciones como very + sustantivo

(13)

con acepción negativa y worst) para infundir emociones y sentimientos hostiles en los lectores. Los autores que apoyan al presidente republicano, en cambio, utilizan expresiones negativas (many + sustantivo con acepción negativa) para subrayar las fallas de la oposición, y al mismo tiempo enfatizan expresiones positivas de Judgment (por ejemplo the most + sustantivo con acepción positiva y best) con el objetivo de subrayar las características positivas y los numerosos éxitos de Trump, y por tanto persuadirle para que muestren su apoyo hacia la presidencia.

En vista de lo que hemos afirmado anteriormente, podemos concluir que los periodistas que critican la imagen de Trump quieren tomar una posición más ofensiva, con el fin de crear una comunidad compartida de sentimientos y sensaciones negativas hacia el presidente.

Gracias a un uso frecuente de expresiones lingüísticas negativas, tienen la intención de fomentar la ya existente percepción negativa con respecto a su cargo presidencial, y esperan por tanto un público de lectores que ya comparta esta visión. En cambio, los autores que apoyan a Donald Trump quieren adoptar una posición defensiva, tratando de crear una comunidad empática para cambiar la idea de aquellos lectores que comparten ideas conflictivas, buscando una fuerte condivisión de ideas y de apoyo. Además, ambos grupos de periodistas tienen la tendencia a rechazar puntos de vistas y voces alternativos, buscando con mayor intensidad una alineación de posición con los lectores potenciales, con la excepción de que aquellos que atacan a Trump hacen más espacio para voces externas, invitan a participar en el debate y a interpretar las opiniones presentadas en los artículos, mientras que los autores que apoyan a Trump no sólo disienten, sino que no dejan espacio para debates ni opiniones que estén en contra de las que expresan en sus editoriales.

(14)

(15)

INTRODUCTION

1. Aims and objectives

The purpose of this study is to conduct an in-depth analysis on written evaluative language, seeing as it undoubtedly represents one of the most powerful and efficient communicative tools at our disposal as social individuals. More precisely, the aim of this dissertation is to investigate how communication happens from the point of view of evaluation, given that language is not only used as an important cognitive tool, but it also constitutes a crucial instrument for assessing evaluations and expressing opinions over certain matters. Thus, one of the objectives of this study is to examine not only the information that is conveyed but most importantly how it is conveyed to a potential public and why, what can be hidden behind meanings and how lexical resources can be employed in order to express evaluations, judgements, opinions and taking stances towards matters and situations in order to invoke something in the person who is reading.

Therefore, this dissertation presents a close investigation to the central notions of

“evaluation” and “evaluative language”, by providing definitions and possible approaches, and by conducting an in-depth analysis of a field that mostly embodies such concepts: that of journalistic language. In particular, the examination will be focused on opinion sections, seeing as they represent a direct and accessible tool for communication between social individuals.

The subject chosen for the investigation is United States’ President Donald Trump, given the fact that since his election in 2016 he’s been considered as one of the most powerful, influential and also controversial people on the planet, with his decisions and statements having a huge influence on political, economic and societal matters.

Precisely, the approach chosen to conduct such investigation is the Appraisal Theory developed by linguists Martin and White (2005). The theory fits the aims of our study since it allows us to analyze evaluative language from several points of view, all crucial for the language of newspapers and opinion articles: the point of view of emotions and morals and how positive and negative assessments are expressed; the point of view of negotiating

(18)

18

engagement with other voices present in the discourse and negotiating alignment with potential readers; the graduation of meanings and how language can be emphasized or lessened through use of specific linguistic features.

2. Organization

By way of introduction, Chapter 1 will outline the main topics that will be analyzed throughout the thesis. Notably, we will first focus on the central principles of Evaluative language and Evaluation, by providing an introductory definition as devised by linguist Susan Hunston (2010), and an overview of similarities and different approaches in relation to such concepts, adopted by many researchers in the field. We will then shift towards the Appraisal Theory developed by Martin and White (2005), providing an overview of its relationship to the tradition of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) and an introduction of its main features.

Chapter 2 will provide a description of the corpus and the methods adopted for the analysis. In particular, the chapter will first present the notion of Corpus linguistics and why it is so important for investigations in the linguistic field. A section will be dedicated to the genre of editorials, examining its definition, language and structure, followed by a description of the corpus of editorials we will investigate. The chapter will then be centered around the Appraisal Theory, by conducting an in-depth analysis of its main features of Attitude, Engagement and Graduation, and providing practical examples of their realizations in opinion articles and editorials taken from well-known newspapers.

Finally, Chapter 3 will exemplify how the theoretical principles we have addressed can be applied to data analysis, both from a quantitative and qualitative point of view. In particular, we will focus on the analysis of editorials of American based and English based newspapers dealing with the controversial topic of US President Donald Trump’s political office, in order to identify common and different patterns of evaluative language, basing our analysis on the parameters of Martin and White’s Appraisal Theory (Martin and White 2005).

(19)

19

CHAPTER 1 Evaluation and Evaluative language

1. Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to provide a first introduction to a number of key concepts that will serve as main tools for the analysis that will be conducted throughout the work. In particular, in this chapter we will be examining the notions of Evaluative language and Evaluation in written texts as devised by British linguist Susan Hunston (2010), as well as the most relevant approaches that have been taken into consideration by several researchers when analyzing such concepts. Most notably, section 4 of the chapter will be centered around the approach of the Appraisal Theory developed by scholars J.R. Martin and P.R.R. White (2005), providing an overview of its development and of its fundamental principles.

2. Evaluative language

According to Susan Hunston (2010), Evaluative language can be defined as a kind of language which concerns two ulterior acts: the evaluation act and the stance-taking act. It consists in manifesting a a standpoint or a position towards an individual, an entity or towards other matters and circumstances. Contrary to what many believe, this type of expression or stance-taking is subjective and situated within a specific system of value dictated by the surrounding society and the social relations that take place in it.

In order to shortly explain these concepts, here is a concrete example of the use of evaluative language, taken from an article of the British newspaper The Guardian.

Extract 1.

The Guardian view on Trump’s war: UK goes from poodle to lapdog?

This country will not profit from pursuing a reckless Brexit while hitching ourselves to Donald Trump’s Iranian misadventure.

(20)

20

British prime minister flies back from a Caribbean holiday where he has been, courtesy of millionaire friends, sunning himself on yachts while the Middle East is in flames and Britain in the grip of a security crisis. Britain’s key ally is accused of war crimes on foreign soil in a fight with Iran and its regional proxies. European opinion has quickly solidified around the idea that both sides show restraint. The British response is to defy this advice and endorse a belligerent US administration’s approach.

Deja vu? It certainly should sound familiar.

(The Guardian 2020)

The extract provides a clear example of an evaluative act, in this instance in the form of an editorial of a newspaper. Surely enough, the article provides information to the potential reader. However, this information is delivered on two different levels: an objective level, and a subjective (and evaluative) level.

As far as the objective level is concerned, general information regarding the current political scheme is delivered to the public, in particular regarding Donald Trump and the US relationship with Iran, and UK's political situation. However, the information provided cannot be considered as purely objective and impartial, but rather presents clear and well-defined traits of a subjective act of evaluation (examples of the act are highlighted in italics). The author uses different resources to express his personal point of view on the matter: from the very first start, it is clear to the reader that the position adopted is not going to be in favor of the subjects mentioned in the article. The words poodle and lapdog, found immediately in the title of the article, here are not employed in their usual objective sense. In fact, instead of describing canine breeds, they are used to refer to a country, thus conveying a very negative meaning to it. Additionally, by stating that Boris Johnson “flies back from a Caribbean holiday where he has been, courtesy of millionaire friends, sunning himself on yachts”, the author presents a sharp contrast between the apparent cheerful behavior of the Prime Minister and the current tragic political situation where “the Middle East is in flames and Britain in the grip of a security crisis”. Surely enough, the author could have conveyed the information in a much more objective and impartial way, for example by not including strong words such as poodle and lapdog or detailed descriptions of the politician’s lavish vacation, or by substituting the powerful expressions in flames and in the grip of with a more neutral ‘the countries are experiencing a difficult time’. Instead, the writer deliberately chose specific words that carry a huge evaluative meaning, with the aim to express a personal take on the matter. Finally, to remark his position he employs the modal verb should in the utterance “it certainly should sound familiar” to almost scold the Prime Minister by referencing past similar behavior that eventually led to political troubles for the UK. Thanks to these

(21)

21 resources, the author is trying to negotiate a possible alignment with the public, hoping to instill the same reasoning in the mind of the potential reader and eventually bring new allies to his side.

These few examples are enough to show us why the study of evaluative language is to be considered as fundamental. As stated by Hunston (2010: 3), expressing an attitude and an opinion towards an individual, an entity or a situation is crucial for linguistic acts that are oriented towards social purposes, like the actions of argumentation and persuasion. Taking a position in relation to a matter and trying to achieve an eventual alignment with the public is of utmost importance for establishing social relationships and fostering social interaction between people. Nevertheless, the language of evaluation can represent a significant obstacle for studies based on linguistics, as there are no immediate and specific set of language configurations, for example lexis or grammar, that can truly include the wide range of expressions pertaining to the sphere of evaluative language (Hunston 2010). For this reason, in the following sections we will analyze different ways in which the notion of evaluation can be approached and identified.

3. Evaluation

In order to better understand the aim of this analysis, we must delve further into the notion of Evaluation. This concept, that to a non-trained reader can result very hard to break down at first glance, or in most cases even irrelevant or non-existent, actually proves to be full of complexities and nuances once we decide to conduct an in-depth analysis over it.

The strategy we intend to adopt is that of following the example of Hunston (2010), by

“problematizing” the concept of evaluation, and investigating how a feature of language that is so dependent on its context can be the subject of a research based on corpus approaches, while at the same time discovering the divergences reflected in the concepts and in the numerous approaches and languages that have been adopted by many scholars when investigating the notion under consideration. Certainly, at first impact, we discover that there is a vast range of vocabulary that can be employed when dealing with linguistic domains pertaining to similar fields: language can be referred to as evaluative, attitudinal or affective;

evaluation can sometimes be interchanged with appraisal, stance and metadiscourse (Hunston 2010). All these terms can be considered as almost analogous on a grand scale, especially if we take into account the fact that they all belong to the same area of study. However, it is of

(22)

22

utmost importance to debate on the divergences that come into play when considering their different techniques and methods of use that cause clear distinctions in the terminology that is employed. As an example, when considering this last point, we must highlight the variety of language that can be used when describing the complex phenomenon of evaluation, by listing the different definitions provided by the most prominent scholars when considering it as the object of their study. Here are some options, as outlined by Hunston (2010: 10):

- According to Englebretson (Englebretson 2007, in Hunston 2010: 10), evaluation is an act performed by an individual, that can either remain unstated or carried out through the use of linguistic means. This action is performed intentionally and is directly linked to the concept of stance-taking, which implies that taking a position and expressing an opinion over a matter is something that requires an active and direct participation. Furthermore, this term makes reference to the traditionally agreed theory according to which individuals carry out their socially-oriented activities in grounds called interactions.

- Evaluation consists in “the set of words and phrases which express evaluative meaning” (Hunston 2010: 10). The two scholars Hyland and Tse state that metadiscourse is “the linguistic resources used to organize a discourse or the writer’s stance towards either its content or the reader” (Hyland and Tse 2004, in Hunston 2010:10), while the term stance, as considered by Conrad and Biber (Conrad and Biber 2000, in Hunston 2010: 11), represents a way to reflect feelings and points of view of an individual from a subjective perspective.

- As outlined by Martin and White (2005), the evaluative act encompasses all those meanings that can be stated in discourse through the employment of a vast range of linguistic means. Here they present the notion of appraisal (that will later be analyzed in detail as the chapters go on) to describe a phenomenon in which the writer employs a “system of meanings” that allows him/her to take a stance towards a content, while convincing the potential audience to do the same. Furthermore, the two scholars endorse the theory according to which acts carried out in a text can be classified into three categories: “expressing attitude, construing a subjective position, aligning self with audience”

(Hunston 2010: 11). Their investigation on how to identify and organize

(23)

23 semantic resources originated from the principles of Systemic Functional

Linguistics (SFL), an approach to linguistics first devised by Michael Halliday that considers language as a social semiotic system.

- Last but not least, according to Hunston, “evaluation is a function performed by a text” (Hunston 2010: 11), that will consequently be considered as something that operates independently from its eventual interlocutors. In this respect, Hunston created a model of features for examining the ways in which evaluation operates in a corpus of academic texts, such as Status, Stance and Modality.

In order to provide an additional explanation, we can take as example the concluding sentence of the previous article:

(1) “It certainly should sound familiar”.

This expression represents an act of stance-taking with respect to an object that both interactants are familiar with. In this case the object refers to the previous statements made in the article, the shared negative view on UK’s Prime Minister and his behavior. It includes the adverb certainly and the verb should, that clearly express evaluative meaning. The adverb indicates that alternative views opposed to that sustained by the writer will not be allowed in the article; the verb adds emphasis to the sentence and by expressing obligation it almost forces the writers to direct their stream of thought to a past memory. The purpose of these evaluative actions carried out by the writer is that of trying to align the readers to his thoughts by creating a shared background of views and events, and then provoking a reaction in their minds based on the effect caused by his words.

3.1. Five points of consensus on Evaluation

The possibilities listed above show the distinct methods adopted by various scholars when analyzing the notion of evaluation as an object of investigation. However, for the development of this dissertation, it is important to also list five points of consensus that can be agreed unanimously by all experts when dealing with such concept, as outlined by Hunston (2010: 12).

According to the first point of consensus, evaluation is to be examined both from a

(24)

24

subjective and an intersubjective point of view. As far as subjectivity is concerned, evaluative words, remarks and comments express a personal opinion, the taking of a stance by the writer towards a specific matter. For this reason, it is not possible to consider them as either true or false in an impartial way. Evaluation is something strictly personal, that pertains to the subjective sphere, quite simply because evaluative comments and remarks are uttered and supported first and foremost by the writer that delivers them. The notion of intersubjectivity is to be considered of the same significance, seeing how evaluation entails social interaction, serving as a bridge between two or more interactants. Not surprisingly, Martin and White (2005) position their Appraisal Theory study within the sphere of interpersonal metafunction, and according to Du Bois' theory on discourse (Du Bois 2007, in Hunston 2010: 12), every single evaluative act implies that writer and reader find an alignment when negotiating their points of view. Construing, developing and then being able to preserve relationships are considered by many to be some of the fundamental purposes of evaluative language.

Therefore, we can affirm that social interaction can be accomplished through evaluation.

The second point of agreement illustrates that evaluation builds a common ideological framework between writer and reader, a commonly shared setting that allows them to form the basis for a successful interaction. While we have previously stated that evaluation is something that works on a personal, subjective level, it is also true that it occurs within a social and ideological common ground shared by two (or more) interactants. Hence, the participants are situated within the same system of values. Even though writers tend to use some types of evaluative language because of the beliefs and principles they sustain and that they assume are shared among the readers, the idea of being situated within the same value system remains valid and a crucial point of evaluation, regardless of the eventual agreement or disagreement on the topic they are discussing.

According to the third point of agreement, there is a huge variety of parameters of evaluative acts, most of which pertain to the field of lexis. Even though many scholars tend to disagree on which kind of indicators fully belong in this category (for instance, some categories of modal meaning can be omitted), if we confine the concept of evaluation to something that can be classified as “desirable or undesirable” (Hunston 2010) we will come to an overall consensus. As an example, the most typical markers of evaluation consist of adjectives such as good and bad, or wonderful and terrible (Hunston 2010), that can easily be recognized as evaluative acts by anyone, even when located outside of a specific context and environment. However, most scholars agree that evaluative language can be comprised of such a huge variety of lexis that writing them all down one by one would not be practical for

(25)

25 the investigation. A much more useful and smart approach is that of listing the most common categories of lexical items that are agreed to be strong indicators of evaluative (and therefore subjective) language.

According to Hunston (2010: 13), the above-mentioned classes are:

- nouns (e.g. success, failure) - verbs (e.g. to succeed, to fail) - adjectives (e.g. wonderful, terrible) - adverbs (e.g. luckily, unluckily)

- idioms (e.g. a piece of cake, raining cats and dogs)

- grammatical frames and patterns (e.g. it was nice of him to do that) consisting of a specific structure (e.g. it was adjective of person to do something)

In addition, there is another significant characteristic of evaluation illustrated by the third point of consensus, and that is that evaluative language may be both expressed explicitly in a clear and direct way, and also implied and not directly expressed.

As we already hinted in the previous paragraph, the fourth point of agreement states that evaluative language is performed within a context. In other words, if we come across an isolated term, which is not written in a specific environment nor context, we cannot be sure to distinguish whether said word has an evaluative meaning, or that if it presumably has one, whether that meaning can be recognized and classified. In short, in order to fully state whether evaluation is occurring or not, we need a given context. As an example, following Hunston’s suggestions (2010), if we take into account some terms from Extract 1 and we remove them from their context (e.g. poodle, lapdog), when thinking of their meaning or category, a potential reader may think of a context where he or she might usually find said terms (e.g. a dog of a specific breed, a small pet animal) and therefore convey a meaning that solely depends on that context. However, there are certainly a variety of possible options when finding a context for poodle and lapdog, thus giving them a different meaning and classifying them in different categories (Cambridge Dictionary), for example a situation in which a subject is willing to obey another, (e.g. to be somebody’s poodle), or that is overly subservient to another, (e.g. he’s such a lapdog to her). As a consequence, we can apply this reasoning to all evaluative meanings (Hunston 2010: 14). In this respect, we provide a clear example:

when thinking of the term eye, the first and most obvious context that comes to mind is that of a body part (e.g. blue eyes), therefore making it a word lacking of evaluative meaning.

However, if we put it in a different context, e.g. that was eye-catching, the message we are trying to express changes notably, and it is to be considered evaluative, namely describing something as attractive and appealing.

(26)

26

According to the fifth point of agreement, evaluative language implies both a target and a source (Hunston 2010: 17). Recognizing the target is fairly easy: an individual expresses an opinion over something, the object of discussion. Nevertheless, identifying where the act of evaluation comes from doesn’t appear to be so immediate. While it usually originates from the author of the written piece, it can prove to be a much more complex process if we take into account the concept of Attribution, according to which the source can be attributed to third parties who are external from the conversation. An example of this attributive process is the grammatical form of the indirect speech: when reporting other people’s statements, evaluations can be attributed to third parties other than the own writer of the text. In this case the writer, who already expresses his own evaluation, will also be the source of an additional evaluative act, carried out by the subject of the reported speech.

3.2. Possible approaches to Evaluation

As we anticipated in the introductory part of this chapter, there are several approaches and methods to adopt when investigating the topics of evaluation and evaluative language.

Hunston (2010) identifies four main approaches out of all the possibilities as the most significant ones. The approaches will be outlined as follows in order to provide a background knowledge to the study that will be carried out throughout the chapters.

The first approach to take into consideration is the Appraisal Theory, devised by scholars Martin and White (2005) following the principles of Systemic Functional Linguistics, SFL.

The theory of SFL, first introduced by linguist Michael Halliday (2004) considers language primarily as a system, specifically a social semiotic system. One of the central principles of this theory is that any communicative act cannot be carried out without intention: therefore, any communication involves a choice. And the purpose of SFL is to map out all possible choices available in any linguistic variety using the representation of a system network. As a result, language is considered as a “system of choices” (Hunston 2010: 20), thanks to which the expression of meaning consists in the selection of one option out of all the other options available.

Another central theoretical principle is that through language we are able to carry out three main functions: ideational, interpersonal, textual. Each of these is organized in a system and each operates in a different way. The ideational function consists in building experience.

According to Hunston it is “atomistic” (Hunston 2010: 20) in the sense that language is made

(27)

27 of different elements (e.g. participants) that together give us a whole. The interpersonal function regards the establishment of social relations between individuals; it is “prosodic”

(Hunston 2010: 20) meaning that evaluative communication is distributed throughout the text and may not be easy to identify. Finally, the textual function is concerned with the arrangement of discourse into texts. It is defined by Hunston as “wave-like” (2010: 20), since we might find it difficult to differentiate between the parts of the sentence and the parts of the text, but we could be able to identify a progressive shift, for example, when the flow of information is presented to the reader by shifting from old facts to new facts. Martin and White (2005) thus identify their subject matter in semantic resources, focusing their investigation on the processes created in order to construct meanings, for example within the three functions of language mentioned above. Even though they represent through examples specific classes of lexical items, the central point of their analysis are systems of meanings, rather than simply analyzing specific features of language. For this reason they develop the Appraisal Theory, which concerns interpersonal language, that is when writers adopt a subjective stance towards both the material they present in texts and the audience they present it to (Hunston 2010: 20-21). Martin and White’s theory will be discussed more in detail in section 4 of this chapter and in section 4 of Chapter 2.

Another possible approach to take into consideration is Hunston’s research on evaluative language in written academic texts, concerning the concepts of Status, Value and Relevance (Hunston 2010: 21-22). The findings of this investigation recognize three different features that constitute the action of evaluation: identifying and classifying an object, attributing a value to said object, and lastly defining the importance of the information. These actions are then recognized as equivalents of the three main functions constituting the evaluative act, hence Status (extracting an object from clauses), Value (assigning a value to the object) and Relevance (establishing the relevance of the object in relation to the discourse under consideration).

A third approach to the study of evaluation consists in the analysis of the concept of Stance, as demonstrated by several linguists and scholars. Conrad and Biber (Conrad and Biber 2000, in Hunston 2010: 22), for instance, carried out an analysis on adverbs expressing stance found in corpora, classifying them into subgroups in relation to two different factors:

grammatical form (single word or prepositional clause) and type of stance expressed (style, epistemic and attitude). They researched cases in which employing a specific grammatical tool conveys a subjective point of view and meaning to a clause. Certainly, the two linguists intended to conduct a quantitative investigation by collecting a large number of indicators and

(28)

28

stance locutions, instead of examining the notion of stance itself. A much different approach is the one adopted by researchers who introduce the term stance-taking. By emphasizing that stance is interpreted as an activity, these scholars propose a qualitative analysis rather than a quantitative one. Du Bois (Du Bois 2007, in Hunston 2010: 23) devises the stance triangle to exemplify the action of taking a stance, a position towards a matter. The three vertices of the triangle are represented by evaluation, positioning and alignment: when taking a stance, an interactant first gives an evaluation to a target, then takes a position towards said target, and eventually aligns (or disaligns) with other interactants in relation to the target. As we will later see in the next chapter, Martin and White’s Appraisal Theory is derived from this triangle.

This approach underlines how important it is for the three concepts to work together:

according to Hunston (2010) it’s inevitable that the evaluation of an object demonstrates the position taken by a subject with reference to an object (ideological feature of evaluation), and also how other subjects are positioned in relation to each other (interactional feature of evaluation).

Last but not least, a further approach is the one that considers the concept of Metadiscourse. As stated by Hunston (2010: 23), the central theoretical principle is that of focusing on the writer-reader interaction and differentiating between two types of discourse:

primary or informative discourse, and secondary or interactional discourse. According to most researchers, Metadiscourse regards the presence of the writer (whether clear or concealed) in the text aimed both at providing information (informative) and at creating an interaction with the reader, towards himself/herself or towards the content of the text (interactional). As a further example, Hyland and Tse (2004, in Hunston 2010: 23-24) identify Metadiscourse in all those linguistic tools that are employed to give a structure to a text and to arrange the author’s position with respect to the potential audience and the same content of the text.

In this section of the study we have discussed the main approaches that have been adopted by researchers in order to conduct an analysis on the topics of evaluation and evaluative language. For reasons of adequacy and completeness, the approach that we will adopt throughout the thesis is the one of the Appraisal Theory, devised by linguists Martin and White (2005).

(29)

29 4. The Appraisal Theory

As we anticipated before, the Theory of Appraisal was first conceived by linguists J.R. Martin and P.R.R. White (2005) as a research tool for evaluative language.

But what is exactly appraisal? Why is it directly related to the language of evaluation? In everyday language, the term refers to the act of examining a person or a situation in order to form a judgement or an opinion (Cambridge Dictionary). Similarly, as stated in the previous sections, evaluation is an action that is performed with the intention of taking a stance towards a matter and subsequently expressing an opinion over said matter.

Martin and White summarize the main aims of their study and the core principles of the Appraisal Theory as follows:

This book is concerned with the interpersonal language, with the subjective presence of writers/speakers in texts as they adopt stances towards both the material they present and those with whom they communicate. It is concerned with how writers/speakers approve and disapprove, enthuse and abhor, applaud and criticise, and with how they position their readers/listeners to do likewise. It is concerned with the construction by texts of communities of shared feelings and values, and with the linguistic mechanism for the sharing of emotions, tastes and normative assessments. It is concerned with how writers/speakers construe for themselves particular authorial identities or personae, with how they align or disalign themselves with actual or potential respondents, and with how they construct for their texts an intended or ideal audience.

(Martin and White 2005: 1)

While it is true that subjects of this kind have long been discussed by researchers of rhetoric, discourse and communication in general, Martin and White (2005) propose a new approach by following the tradition of SFL (Systemic Functional Linguistics), which considers language as a social semiotic system. One of the main principles of this tradition is that every communicative act involves a choice. Communication cannot take place without intention.

Therefore, the purpose of SFL is to map out all possible choices available in any linguistic variety by using the representation of a system network. Within the scope of this theory, language is represented as a system of choices, that allows us to construe meaning by selecting one linguistic option out of all the possibilities. Additionally, SFL identifies three major functions of language that are performed at the same time: ideational, textual and interpersonal. The ideational function allows individuals to create a world of experience; the textual function has the purpose of arranging discourse into texts, while the interpersonal function allows to establish social relations between individuals.

The aim of Martin and White’s studies (2005: 1) is that of examining and developing the

(30)

30

interpersonal function while considering these three categories that may alter the intersubjective stance of the writer. In order to do that, they take into account a concept that has been commonly called affect - the ways in which writers make positive or negative evaluations of people, events and situations that are addressed in the discourse - while proposing an innovative take on the matter. The novelty of their new approach consists in focusing not only on the tools employed by writers to conceal their attitudinal evaluations, but also on the means used to indirectly lead their readers to take evaluative stances and give their own opinions on the content presented to them. The writers’ evaluations represent a fundamental object of study because they express views, beliefs and feelings, and the ways in which they establish their authority throughout the text. Furthermore, they negotiate alignment and social relationships with hypothetical readers.

Another point of focus of Martin and White’s investigation are the concepts of epistemic modality and evidentiality (2005: 2), meaning they tackle both issues regarding the writer’s level of knowledge and certainty in relation to an event he or she is writing about (whether the author was present during the event, or heard about it, whether his or her deductions are based on general knowledge or visual proofs etc.), and also examine the ways in which the voice of the writer places itself in relation to alternative potential voices and points of view (whether the author agrees with, rejects, or ignores actual or potential readers). Finally, the two scholars also investigate the concept of intensification (Martin and White 2005: 2), the means by which writers intensify or diminish the force of their statements.

As a brief introduction to the approach that will be adopted in the thesis, the following extract can be considered as an example of some of the main points of analysis that have been outlined above. The extract is taken from the opinion section of the online version of the New York Post, and it regards the 2016 presidential campaign of current US President Donald Trump. The piece is divided into segments, as only the most significative ones have been chosen.

Extract 2.

The Post endorses Trump for NY primary

Donald Trump is a rookie candidate — a potential superstar of vast promise. […] The promise is clearly there in the rookie who is, after all, leading the field as the finals near. Trump has electrified the public, drawing millions of new voters to the polls and inspiring people who’d given up on ever again having a candidate who’d fight for them. That’s the work of the Donald Trump we know — a New Yorker, born and bred. […] A plain-talking entrepreneur with outer-borough, common-sense sensibilities. Trump is a do-er. As a businessman, he’s created jobs for thousands. And he’s proven how a private-sector, can-do approach can rip through government red

(31)

31 tape and get things done. These last 10 months, he’s ripped through a different morass

— the nation’s stale, insider-driven politics. And he’s done it by appealing to the public’s anger at a government that’s eternally gridlocked when it comes to serving the people — but always able to deliver for the connected. He’s slammed the system for being rigged — and he’s right. To those fed up with the rule of lobbyists and an insular political class, to those who’ve seen their government ignore their needs — seen it continually degrade the quality not just of their economic lives, but of their place in society — Trump offers hope. […] But what else to expect from someone who’s never been a professional politician and reflects common-man passions?

Indeed, his political incorrectness is one of his great attractions — it proves he’s not one of “them.” He’s challenging the victim culture that has turned into a victimizing culture. […] Trump is now an imperfect messenger carrying a vital message. But he reflects the best of “New York values” — and offers the best hope for all Americans who rightly feel betrayed by the political class. He has the potential — the skills, the know-how, the values — to live up to his campaign slogan: to make America great again. For those reasons, The Post today endorses Donald Trump in the GOP primary.

(The New York Post 2016)

This extract is a clear example of how an author indirectly leads his/her potential readers to take an evaluative stance with regard to the content presented to them. In this case, the writer is trying to construe consensus towards Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign through the use of a specific language, precisely markers of positivity and intensification. In particular, the topic being discussed is the New York primary election and why voters should endorse the Republican candidate. Words and expressions carrying evaluative meaning will be highlighted in italics.

The audience is immediately confronted with the stance taken by the editorial, as it is explicitly and clearly expressed in the title of the article. This first glimpse of enthusiasm for Trump is then further confirmed by the first three lines, where the author presents himself/herself as a fan of the Republican candidate. By using a language that is usually common to the field of sports, the writer creates the metaphor of the sports champion competing against rivals. In fact, when expressing his/her approval of the political strategy adopted for the campaign, Trump is referred to as a “rookie candidate”, “a potential superstar of vast promise”, who is “leading the field as the finals near”. The author then proceeds to make a list of Trump’s admirable traits (“a New Yorker, born and bred”, “a plain-talking entrepreneur”, “a do-er”), his impressive achievements in the work field (“he’s created jobs for thousands”) and the victories conquered in the political sphere (“he’s ripped through a different morass — the nation’s stale, insider-driven politics”), almost presenting these actions as heroic deeds. The list is then followed by an act of intensification that presents a sharp contrast with the positivity expressed up to that point: the author uses a climax by referring “to those fed up with the rule of lobbyists and an insular political class, to those

(32)

32

who’ve seen their government ignore their needs — seen it continually degrade the quality not just of their economic lives, but of their place in society” reassuring them that “Trump offers hope”. By naming the society’s defects and failures that can be solved if Trump wins the election, the writer grounds his/her evaluations in the emotional sphere of the readers, and creates a global community of shared feelings by uniting all those voters who want to change the current state of affairs, persuading them to come together to vote for the same candidate.

Finally, the concluding part of the article justifies Trump’s mistakes by defining him as “an imperfect messenger carrying a vital message”, that of reflecting “the best of New York values”.

4.1. Appraisal within SFL

As we already suggested above, Martin and White’s model of evaluation has been developed within the traditional scope of Systemic Functional Linguistics. In this section we will briefly describe the development of the Appraisal Theory following the scholars’ example by summarizing its relationship to SFL and to other theories regarding the evaluative and the interpersonal sphere (Martin and White 2005). In particular, we will delineate some of the most relevant principles of SFL, in order to locate the concept of appraisal in a “holistic model of language and social context” (Martin and White 2005: 7).

The first parameter to analyze is Metafunction. SFL is a model that considers a plenitude of perspectives, devised with the aim to offer different viewpoints in order to examine language. In this respect, as we already stated before, SFL supports the theory of “kinds of meaning” (Martin and White 2005: 7), by recognizing three major domains (also called metafunctions) that interact simultaneously. The first is the ideational metafunction, comprising all of those resources through which individuals build a world of experience. It allows them for example to understand what is happening, where, when, why and how. The second domain is the textual metafunction, whose aim is to provide an organization to discourse by arranging it into texts. For instance, it establishes the way in which the information flows across the text and what means are being employed. The third and last domain is the interpersonal metafunction, thanks to which individuals are able to establish and eventually negotiate social relationships. As an example, it considers how people communicate and what kind of feelings and emotions they express. As already anticipated,

Corso di Laurea Magistrale in

Università degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia D