Escala valorativa de las variables

96

The ENGAGEMENT SYSTEM concerns speakers’ engagement with their utterances. Engagement employs “resources for positioning the speaker’s/author’s voice with respect to the various propositions and proposals conveyed by and invoked by a text” (White 2001: 1). Here we are concerned with who is making the evaluations; there may be many voices in a text or one single voice, that of the author. In other words, the ENGAGEMENT SYSTEM can also be considered to include resources for introducing other voices into the discourse. Two terms refer to ENGAGEMENT

and the stance of the writer/speaker: monogloss and heterogloss. The basic distinction between these two is that monoglossic Engagement, as explained by White (2002: 2) is “bare, ‘undialogized’

assertion”; there is “no acknowledgement of/engagement with alternative positions and voices. [It is] typically associated with what is taken to be common/consensual ‘knowledge’ or shared

‘belief/viewpoint – thus occurs less frequently with attitudinal evaluation than with ‘factual’

descriptions” (White P.P.R. 2002:2). Monogloss ignores diversity with other utterances, while dialogic heterogloss does acknowledge in some way the diversity associated with other utterances (Miller: 2004:44).

• monogloss and heterogloss

By monogloss, then, we refer to monoglossic discourse, that is, when there is “no acknowledgement of/engagement with alternative positions and voices”… It is an unqualified

“bare assertion” (White P.P.R. 2002:2, my emphasis).

In heteroglossic discourse, the writer gives space for alternative standpoints. While the statement

“Meteors destroyed the dinosaurs on earth” is a bare assertion, and thus, an example of monogloss, the statement, “Some experts think that meteors destroyed the dinosaurs on earth” acknowledges other positions. In other words, “some experts think that…” allows for the possibility that other experts do not think so.

We will now look at heterogloss in more detail. White (2002: 3) distinguishes three levels of analysis:

1. Who is the voice? Is the writer (the textual voice) the source of the proposition or proposal or is the proposition/proposal attributed to an external voice

2. Expansion/Contraction

a Expansion: to what degree are alternative positions and voices entertained or considered

b Contraction: to what degree are alternative positions and voices challenged or restricted

3. Alignment/Disalignment

a Alignment: the writer (the textual voice) agrees with or supports an actual, potential or construed dialogic partner

b Disalignment; the writer (the textual voice) disagrees with or is at odds with an actual, potential or construed dialogic partner

There are various forms in which Heteroglossic Engagement is expressed. For example, in the following conversation between Tony and his psychotherapist, Dr. Melfi, we can see an example of Expansion and Contraction.

Tony: I think my mother has problems relating to other people.

Dr. Melfi: Of course she has difficulty in maintaining relationships with others.

97

I think expresses the consideration of a possible alternative voice (Expansion) and Of course expresses the rejection of other voices (Contraction).

The discussion that follows is concerned with Contraction and Expansion. Figure 3 illustrates the resources of Engagement that will now be discussed. Students will be required to recognize heteroglossic and monoglossic discourse, but the finer analysis of the sub-categories of Contraction and Expansion are beyond the scope of this course and consequently will not be tested.

• Dialogic Contraction includes resources for (i) disclaiming and (ii) proclaiming.

(i) Disclaiming means the writer introduces a position and then either rejects it, replaces it, or dismisses it as irrelevant (White 2002:3). An example of disclaiming is: “He’s a really nice man, but he’s a bit dull.”. Disclaiming, as you can see from the figure above, includes (a) denying (negation) and (b) countering.

(a) with denial, the writer introduces a position and then rejects it, as in this example:

“There were many signs that inflation would decrease, but it failed to do so.”

(b) with countering, the writer “invokes an alternative proposition” but then “indicates that it does not apply” (White 2002: 4). This can be achieved by using a Comment Adjunct, such as ‘suprisingly’ in the above table. In the example, “Surprisingly, all the students came to class”, the writer, with a Comment Adjunct, introduces an expected proposition, not all the students would come to class, and then shows that it is untrue.

Figure 3: resources of Engagement, White 2002: 10

contract

expand

proclaim

entertain

attribute

Counter: yet, although, surprisingly, Concur: of course, natually

Pronunce: I contend that, indeed Endorse: experts have demonstrated that…

This may/must, I think, perhaps, probably, in my view, it appears ..

Acknowledge: The author argues that…

Distance: The author claims to have shown that…

Deny: no, he failed to disclaim

98

(ii) Proclaiming means the writer represents a proposition as valid or plausible, and rules out alternative positions (White 2002: 2), using words such as:

(a) naturally, of course, and obviously ( to concur)

(b) there can be no doubt that and the truth of the matter is (to pronounce) (c) Mr. X has demonstrated that… (to endorse)

• Dialogic Expansion includes those resources for (i) entertaining and (ii) attributing a proposition.

(i) Entertaining means the writer “represents the proposition as one of a range of possible positions” (White 2002: 2). White gives some examples of Entertaining words: it seems, the evidence suggests, apparently, and I hear.

(ii) Attributing means the writer “represents the proposition as one of a range of possible positions” but through an external voice, such as Mr. X said, Mr. X believes, according to Mr.

X, Mr. X claims, and it is rumoured that.

Tony’s monologue below illustrates further examples of Expansion and Contraction. In this monologue, Tony is thinking to himself about what his psychotherapist told him about his mother:

In (i) an external voice is expressed – that of the therapist. In (ii) indeed expresses Contraction. In (iii) of course expresses Contraction. In (iv) I think and must express Expansion. Tony begins his thinking with a proposition that has an external source – the therapist’s. Then he rejects or restricts alternative voices and ends by considering, entertaining, the proposition, “the doctor is right”.

Note: If, in the above monologue, Tony thought, “My doctor is smart, but she’s not infallible.”, he would be first introducing a proposition and then rejecting it with but. In this case, but she’s not infallible would be a further example of Contraction (disclaiming: denial)

• Tip

√Notice that Engagement can be realized with modality resources such as Modal Adjuncts, (of course, naturally, clearly, only, etc.), Modal Finite Operators (must, may, etc.), and Interpersonal Metaphors (I think, I guess etc.). It can be realized, as Martin and Rose point out, by expressing degrees of obligation, probability, and by the choice speakers make from the cline of POLARITY

(2003: 48-50). For a fuller discussion of Engagement, see White 2003a. The complete lack of these resources would suggest monoglossic Engagement.

Examples (7) and (8) below are illustrations of monoglossic and heteroglossic Engagement respectively.

7. The Federal Reserve chairman, Alan Greenspan, will raise rates at the next meeting on May 4 and rates will move higher by the end of the summer. (based on IHT April 2004)

Hmm, Dr. Melfi says my mother has difficulties relating to other people.(i) Indeed Mom always had problems socially.(ii) My doctor is smart, of course.(iii) Well, I think she must be right this time. too.(iv)

99

8. Most economists claim the Fed will not raise rates at its next meeting on May 4, but many believe rates will move higher by the end of the summer.

Example (7) presents the formulation as non-negotiable, unarguable. In Example (8), on the other hand, the proposition is presented as only one of a range of possible positions. (It is an example of heteroglossic Expansion, attributing alternative positions – Most economists claim and many believe) Basically every utterance is potentially heteroglossic. Some are so by explicitly acknowledging other points of view. Indeed, Monoglossic bold and bare assertions are rare and often hedged even in scientific writing.

• Further examples of monoglossic and heteroglossic Engagement:

1. Malnutrition is an important global concern. (Monoglossic Engagement)

2. The so-called culprit was a virus called WSZbigbug. exe. (Heteroglossic Engagement) TASK 15: Which of the following is monoglossic?

a. He allegedly killed them. b. He killed them

TASK16:Which of the following is true of statements (i) and (ii)?

(i) Technology has made it easy. Images of well-known attractions can be quickly downloaded and sent with a message to multiple recipients.

(ii) I believe that writing postcards in a romantic Florentine café or a Beijing teahouse is unbeatable, but sending photos with your phone is certainly irresistible.

A) statement (i) is monoglossic and statement (ii) is heteroglossic B) statement (i) is heteroglossic and statement (ii) is monoglossic C) statement (i) and statement (ii) are both heteroglossic

D) statement (i) and statement (ii) are both monoglossic

TASK 17: Find instances of ENGAGEMENT in the dialogue from The Sopranos in Sec. 8.1?

TASK 18: Which Appraisal System/s is/are being construed in the word/s in italics in the