Engagement resources present the speaker/writer as dialogistically engaged. The nature of this engagement can differ according to whether the Engagement value employed presents the speaker as opening up the dialog to more or less divergent positions or as closing it down so as to suppress or at least limit such divergence. Resources grouped together under Disclaim are generally contracting or closing since, while they acknowledge alternative positions within the dialogistic context, they either reject or directly challenge these. In the case of Denial and Counter-Expect, alternative positions are closed down by being directly rejected or by being replaced. Through Expect and Pronounce, the space for dialogistic diversity is contracted by what amounts to a pre-emptive rhetorical action - the writer/speaker is presented as seeking to constrain possible dialogistic divergence by overtly and strongly indicating their personal investment in the current proposition/proposal. Under Disclaim, then, the terms of arguability are adjusted so that any challenge or questioning of the current utterance puts more at stake interpersonally. Any challenge necessitates a direct confrontation with the speaker writer and in the case of Expect, a confrontation with what is represented as `common-knowledge' or `public opinion'.
In contrast, the resources of Prababilise (Evidence, Likelihood and Hearsay) act to expand or open the space for dialogic diversity and difference. By the use of such resources the speaker/writer indicates that the current assertion is but one of a number of possible alternative assertions and simultaneously indicates that these alternatives are, at least to some degree, anticipated and hence dialogistically authorised. Under Probabilise, the terms of arguability are thus adjusted so that any challenge to, or questioning of, the current utterance would puts less at stake interpersonally. Under Probabilise, the proposition/proposal is, in fact, overtly characterised as arguable or contentions and hence challenge, contradiction or alternation are explicitly authorised dialogistically.
Formulations of Attribution will either expand or contract according to a range of variables, including the authoritativeness of the attributed source and the extent of authorial endorsement of the attributed proposition. An endorsement-neutral formulation such as `Some researchers argue...' will tend towards dialogistic expansion, since the proposition/proposal here is not afforded any enhanced argumentative force. It is represented as simply one view among many. In contrast, endorsed formulations (for example, `As X has so compellingly demonstrated) will tend to contract the scope for dialogistic diversity. Through such formulations, the writer not only indicates their personal investment in the current argument, but adds to the argumentative force by representing the current view as one which is not theirs alone but one which is shared with, for example, the wider community or with relevant experts.
We can, then, make a broad distinction, then, between Engagement resources which contract the space for dialogistic diversity and difference (Denial, Counter-Expect, Expect, Pronounce and authorially-endorsed Attribution) and those which expand the space (Evidence, Likelihood, Hearsay and some values of endorsement-neutral Attribution). I represent this distinction below.
Contracting dialogistic diversity |
(Disclaim:Denial) McGuinness doesn't have anything positive to say about `the chattering classes', of which he has long been a member. (Disclaim:Counter-Expect) Surprisingly, McGuinness is scathing about `the chattering classes', of which he has long been a member. (Proclaim:Expect) McGuinness is, of course, scathing about `the chattering classes' (Proclaim:Pronounce) You'll have to agree with me that McGuinness is especially scathing about `the chattering classes' (Extra-vocalise: authorially-endorsed) A number of leading media analysts have compellingly argued that McGuinness is scathing about `the chattering classes' |
Expanding dialogistic diversity |
(Probabilise:Evidence) It seems that McGuinness is scathing about `the chattering classes' (Probabilise:Likelihood) It's possible that McGuinness is scathing about `the chattering classes' (Probabilise: Hearsay) I hear that McGuiness is scathing about `the chattering classes' (Extra-vocalise: endorsement neutral) Some writers hold that McGuinness is scathing about `the chattering classes'. |
In the above, I have represented the `dialogistic expansion' versus `dialogistic contraction' relationship as binary or taxonomic - Engagement formulations are represented as either one or the other. It is possible, however, to see the resources as lying along a cline between most contracting (Disclaim) and most expanding (endorsement-neutral Attribution).7
The rationale for this ordering is as follows.
Disclaim:Deny: Under Denial, a specific dialogistic alternative (the contrary position) is directly rejected. Thus, while the alternative is referenced, it is given minimal dialogistic space - the formulations allows little scope for negotiation of alternative positions.
Disclaim:Counter-Expect: Under Counter-Expect a particular expectation or inference is invoked. This expectation is not directly rejected, as is in the case with Denial, but, rather, is replaced by an alternative. Thus the expectation (in the above examples) that McGuinness would speak relatively favourably of the social grouping of which he is a member is not denied outright. It is simply replaced with the alternative, that he is `always criticising the chattering classes unfairly'. Accordingly, I conclude that with such an instance of Counter-Expect there is, relative to a Denial, more dialogistic scope for the alternative - the alternative is somewhat more arguable.
Proclaim:Expect: Under Proclaim (and all the remaining Engagement options) alternative positions are no longer directed invoked, though they are anticipated. (We move from retrospective to prospective dialogistic positioning). With Proclaim:Expect formulations such as `of course' or `predictably', the speaker/writer indicates a high level of commitment to the proposition and by this, perhaps paradoxically, renders the utterance relative or contingent since it is thereby associated with a given individualised subjectivity (presumably the shared subjectivity of the writer, reader and possibly `people in general'). The apparent paradox here is similar to that observed by Halliday in association with high values of modality (e.g. `he must be corrupt', `he is definitely corrupt') where, by the indication of their conviction, the speaker/writer renders the utterance less absolute or less invariable than the bare assertion (`he is corrupt')8. The relativity or contingency of the utterance is the basis of its dialogism. As subjectively based, it opens up a certain limited space for dialogistic alternation - the possibly of dialogistic diversity is acknowledged. The high degree of the writer/speakers conviction, however, and the fact that it is represented as being expected by `people in general' means that the scope for dialogic alternation is relatively minimal.
Disclaim:Pronounce: Values of Pronounce have a similar `paradoxical' rhetorical functionality to values of Expect. By explicitly indicating their conviction, the writer/speaker renders the proposition relative or variable, but, of course, only minimally so. I would argue that Pronounce is somewhat more expansive dialogistically than Expect since here the argument is represented as based in the single subjectivity of the speaker/writer rather than in the more generalised subjectivity of speaker/writer plus reader plus `everyone'.
Probabilise (Evidence, Likelihood, Hearsay): Formulations such as It seems, I think, perhaps, it's possible, I hear, It's said are unproblematically more expansive dialogistically than values of Proclaim. While Pronouncement formulations such as `we can but conclude', `I contend' `undeniably' actively confront, challenge and hence discourage dialogistic alternatives, the Probabilise values effectively invite them. They characterise the current proposition as `just my opinion with which you may well disagree'. (Complications which arise from the arguability of intensified options such as `it's certain', `definitely' and `I'm sure' will be discussed below.)
Endorsement-neutral or Dis-endorsed Attributions: Attributions such as `X says...' (endorsement neutral) or `X claims...' (dis-endorsed) typically are the most dialogistically expansive of Engagement resources9. Here the speaker/writer explicitly distances themselves from the attributed source, indicating that they share no responsibility for the material being asserted. The asserted material is thus represented as simply the observation or view point of one individual among many. Such utterances are maximally arguable since they may be challenged or questioned without any direct confrontation of the authorial voice.
7 For the inspiration for this topological approach to dialogistic positioning I am indebted to Henrike Körner. See for example, Körner unpublished
8 As Halliday puts it , `you only say you are certain when you are not' 1994: 89
9 It is, of course, crucial to keep in mind that the functionality of the `X says' formulation (and related formulations) will typically vary significantly from context to context. Thus the writer may have indicated elsewhere in the text that the source X is highly regarded or is highly convincing or has a high status and hence any citation of X will carry with it a sense of authorial endorsement and hence result in a narrowing of the scope of dialogistic negotiability.
