Attribution has been considered at some length in the previous set of notes (Stage 4). Here we consider attribution in the context of dialogistic positioning and introduce an additional term, "extra-vocalisation". Within Engagement, we distinguish two broad categories of resources for negotiating dialogistic or inter-subjective positioning - what are termed "intra-vocalisation" and "extra-vocalisation". Under extra-vocalisation, we are concerned generally with what has previously been termed attribution, with resources which involve the inclusion in the text of some explicitly external voice (hence the term extra-vocalisation). This extra-vocalisation contrasts with resources in which the voice involved in the dialogistic positioning is an internal voice, that is to say, the voice of the speaker or author or writer. All the resources considered earlier in this set of notes (for example, those of Proclaim, Disclaim, Probabilise etc) involve "intra-vocalisation" since the voice which proclaims or disclaims or probabilises is the internal voice of the speaker or writer. I will return to this distinction subsequently. For the moment I take up the question of the dialogistic functionality of extra-vocalisation (attribution)
As already indicated, extra-vocalisation involves the quoting or referencing the statements or points of view of external sources. The rhetorical functionality here somewhat complex because it involves both dialogistic positioning and what can be termed `heteroglossic'6 positioning. Attribution is obviously `heteroglossic' in that it introduces an additional voice into the text - a text with attributions will necessarily be multi/diversely-voiced. Our concern here, however, is not so much with the relationship which the writer/speaker enters into with the quoted source (a relationship of heteroglossic positioning which was explored at length in the previous set of notes) but with the way that writers/speakers uses extra-vocalisation to position themselves dialogistically with respect to actual and potential communicative partners. Consider for example, the following,
Christian Jacq, perhaps the world's most prominent Egyptologist, has argued compellingly that when it came to backroom intrigue and regional betrayal, the modern Middle East still has a lot to learn from ancient Egypt.
Here we encounter a rhetorical manoeuvre which has two aspects. The first is heteroglossic - a second voice is introduced into the text and that voice is evaluated as highly authoritative and convincing. The second is dialogistic - the proposition that ancient Egypt was a place of intrigue and betrayal is associated with an individual subjectivity (that of the attributed source) and is thereby construed as contingent and hence arguable in the current dialogistic context. The degree of arguability that the writer allows, however, is rather limited as a consequence of the high expertise associated with the source. Thus the rhetorical effect of such a formulation is somewhat akin to that of the Pronouncements discussed previously.
There are a number of factors which determine the dialogistic positioning which can result from a given extra-vocalisation. These include the degree of authority which is indicated of the source and the degree to which the writer/speaker endorses (or dis-endorses) the attributed material. Thus the following involve different dialogistic positionings.
6 Once again following terminology from Bakhtin.
