Abstract History texts are not just disciplinary artefacts for describing, explaining or making arguments about the past. They play a key role in defining present-day group identities and their terms of affiliation. As such, they have generated a great deal of interest among functional linguists interested in how ideology is construed through language. But the ways history texts evaluate the past is not straightforward; they include a complex interplay of discourse participants putting forward a range of views toward the subject-matter. This article presents a framework for investigating evaluative meaning in historical discourse that aims to untangle this complex web of voices, showing how they work together to position readers to take up particular views toward the past. The framework brings together two prominent approaches to the study of evaluation: Martin & White’s (2005) Appraisal framework and Hunston’s (2000) notions of Status Value and Relevance. It posits four levels of evaluation (inter-, super-, extra- and meta-evaluation) that are grounded in insights from the field of historiography and reflect key disciplinary activities of historians.

中文翻译：

---

分析历史话语中评价性语言的框架

摘要 历史文本不仅仅是描述、解释或争论过去的学科产物。它们在定义当今的群体身份及其从属关系方面发挥着关键作用。因此，它们在功能语言学家中引起了极大的兴趣，他们对如何通过语言解释意识形态感兴趣。但历史文本评价过去的方式并不简单；它们包括对主题提出一系列观点的话语参与者之间复杂的相互作用。本文提出了一个研究历史话语中评价意义的框架，旨在解开这个复杂的声音网络，展示它们如何协同工作，使读者能够接受对过去的特定观点。该框架汇集了两种主要的评估研究方法：Martin & White (2005) 的评估框架和 Hunston (2000) 的地位价值和相关性概念。它提出了四个级别的评估（内部评估、超级评估、外部评估和元评估），这些评估基于来自史学领域的见解并反映了历史学家的关键学科活动。