In this set of notes we are concerned with the diverse range of resources by which speakers/writers adjust and negotiate the arguability of their utterances. Under the Appraisal framework, such resources are grouped under the heading of "Engagement". The category of Engagement includes values which have been analysed in the literature under headings such as attribution, modality, hearsay, concession, polarity, evidentiality, hedges, boosters and metadiscursives.1
As indicated above, these Engagement resources provide the means by which speakers/writers adjust and negotiate the arguability of their propositions and proposals. More particularly, they are the means by which any utterance, whether in single-party discourse (e.g. writing) or multi-party discourse (e.g. conversation), can be construed so as to reveal its inherent dialogistic potential - that is to say, its location and functionality with reference to past, present and future processes of communicative exchange. Thus by the use of these resources, the terms of the arguability of any utterance can be varied by adjusting the dialogistic status of the utterance, by varying the way in which it is positioned to engage with past, present or future communicative exchanges.
Key Engagement resources include meaning which can be grouped together under the following headings,
1. Disclaim: includes Denial and Counter-Expection
2. Proclaim: includes Expectation and Pronouncement
3. Probabilise: includes Evidence, Likelihood and Hearsay
4. Attribute: e.g. The head of Clinton's security division says this will damage trust. As a number of security experts have indicated, this will damage the trust between President and body guard.)2
1 For modality, see for example, Palmer 1986and Lyons 1977), for evidentiality see Chafe and Nichols 1986), for hedging Jakobson 1957, Myers 1989, Markkanen and Schröder 1997 and Meyer 1997), for `boosters' (Hyland 1996) and for `metadiscursivity', see (Crismore 1989).
2 Engagement includes a greater range of resources than is typically included under headings such as modality and evidentiality (Chafe and Nichols 1986) and a narrower range than is typically included under the heading of meta-discourse (Crismore 1989). It is, perhaps, most noteworthy that Engagement includes resources of Denial (negation and Counter-Expectation/Concession) The reasons for this are set out in the following discussion.
