This paper shows how a novel perspective on the analysis of evaluation in argumentative discourse may be used to explore the values that underlie environmental debates, claims and policies. Expressions of evaluation in discourse have been studied from a number of different perspectives, all highlighting the fact that evaluation may be expressed cumulatively, through a combination of different linguistic means, and pragmatically, at various levels of implicitness, which often defy precise categorization. The paper argues that, in argumentative discourse, the pragmatics of evaluation includes not only implied but also presupposed aspects. A case study centred on the environmental debate over the contested practice of fracking is used to identify the evaluative premises that underlie the main stances (specifically, APPRECIATION, Martin and White 2005) or claims on the issue, as expressed by different stakeholders. It is argued that this wider approach to the analysis of evaluation may be particularly suited to uncover the evaluative premises that underlie different and often contradictory environmental positions and policies as well as to explore the evaluative basis of other argumentative discourse.

中文翻译：

---

环境议论文中的预设评价

本文展示了如何使用对论证性话语中的评估分析的新视角来探索作为环境辩论、主张和政策基础的价值观。已经从许多不同的角度研究了话语中的评价表达，所有这些都强调了这样一个事实，即评价可以通过不同语言手段的组合，在语用上，在不同的隐性水平上累积表达，这往往无法进行精确的分类。论文认为，在议论文中，评价语用不仅包括隐含方面，还包括预设方面。一项案例研究以关于有争议的水力压裂实践的环境辩论为中心，用于确定构成主要立场的评估前提（特别是欣赏、Martin 和 White 2005）或不同利益相关者所表达的对该问题的主张。有人认为，这种更广泛的评估分析方法可能特别适合揭示不同且往往相互矛盾的环境立场和政策背后的评估前提，以及探索其他论证性话语的评估基础。