Appraisal Workshop: Notes – Engagement
Engagement and dialogistic positioning.
The following provides only a brief introductory overview of the Engagement system. Not all the options available in the system are discussed. For a more complete account see Martin and White 2005.
The Bakhtinian perspective:
· Verbal communication as primarily a process of interaction between the various participants who enact the communication process
· Utterances, even in monologic, written texts, do not operate in isolation but are conditioned by the verbal give-and-take, action-and-reaction of communicative interaction.
Utterances to some degree take into account or respond to prior utterances, and anticipate or acknowledge likely responses, reactions and objections from actual or potential dialogic partners.
· Many utterances, even in monologic written texts, will contain elements which play a ‘responsive’ and/or ‘anticipatory’ role. Similarly, many writers, will include elements by which they explicitly represent themselves as responding to prior utterances and/or as anticipating likely possible responses.
By way of example, consider the use of the phrase ‘there is an argument, is there’ in the following. (The extract is from a radio interview in which the interviewer quizzes the then Australian Prime Minister about the behaviour of the Australian banks in raising interest rates at a time when they had been making record profits. This Prime Minister was of a conservative/right-wing persuasion and therefore in favour of the ‘free markets’. He could therefore be expected to be generally supportive of, and reluctant to criticise, such economic ‘powerhouses’ as the banks.)
There is an argument, though, is there, the banks have been a bit greedy I mean, the profits are high and good on them, they're entitled to have high profits, but at the same time the fees are bordering on the unreasonable now.
There is, of course, a backwards looking ‘dialogistic’ aspect to the use of this phrase. The interviewer presents himself as ‘simply’ taking up the words of some other, non-specified prior group of speakers. He represents himself as conveying ‘community concerns’ rather than his own, individual views. But why distance himself in this way? Well, by such a device he indicates that this is a contested, debated assessment of the bank’s behaviour - he acknowledges that this it is but one of a number of views currently in play in society. He thereby indicates that he anticipates that at least some elements in society will object to, and challenge such a suggestion. By representing the proposition as ‘arguable’ in this way, he represents himself as not personally committed to this position and hence signals a preparedness to enter into debate on the issue. In this sense, he engages in dialogistic anticipation.
Engagement and traditional perspectives
This is an area of meaning which has typically been explored in the linguistics literature under such headings as modality, evidentiality, hedging, boosting, attribution, concession, negation and meta-discursivity.[1] Under the Appraisal framework, the resources are brought together under the heading of Engagement on the grounds that they are all resources by which speakers/writers may adjust the arguability of propositions and proposals by varying the dialogistic terms of the utterance, the terms by which the utterance engages with past texts, alternative view points and future responses.
Extra-vocalisation and intertextual positioning.
One of the obvious parameters by which the speaker may vary the dialogistic terms and hence the arguability of their utterances turns on whether the 'voice' which sources the proposition or proposal is represented as text internal (the voice of the speaker/writer) or text external. We give the label 'intra-vocalise' to choices which involve framing of the proposition/proposal by the internal voice (for example, perhaps.., it seems.., I contend… I hear…, the facts of the matter are.., of course… etc). We give the label 'extra-vocalisation' to choices where the proposition/proposal is represented as derived from the external, attributed voice. This category of extra-vocalisation has, of course, been widely studied in the literature under headings such as direct and indirect speech, attribution and intertextuality and heteroglossia.
The choice then between extra or intra vocalisation is the site of a fundamental distinction within Engagement resources.
In exploring extra-vocalisation, we are interested, broadly, in two different evaluative orientations. We are interested, firstly, in the stance the speaker/writer adopts towards the attributed or externalised material and, equally, towards the source itself. Does, for example, the current text endorse the attributed material, evaluate it positively, recommend it to the reader/listener etc or, alternatively, does the current text question the attributed material, dismiss it or derogate it in some way. This evaluative orientation towards the attributed material itself and its source we might term 'heteroglossic'. We are also interested in the degree to which the external voice is assimilated into the text. That is to say, how clear is the demarcation between what the writer/speaker offers on their own behalf and the material which is represented as externally derived.
The options within extra-vocalisation are set out on the following page
The heteroglossic perspective we have just considered is essentially retrospective. The speaker/writer represents themselves as referring back to what has been said or thought previously, or at least what is presented as having been said or thought previously. But under Engagement we are also interested in what might be termed dialogistic “prospection” – where the speaker/writer is positioned with respect to possible anticipated responses to the current proposition. This orientation is prospective (as opposed to retrospective) in that extra-vocalisations/attributions can act to position the speaker/writer’s current utterances with respect to anticipated responses from actual or potential interlocutors. For example, by a formulation such as ‘a few minor critics have claimed that Vermeer employed a camera obscura’, the speaker/writer indicates to actual or potential respondents that they, the speaker/writer, are not strongly committed to the proposition and thereby indicates a readiness to acknowledge and engage with alternative positions. The prospective dialogism of such attribution will be taken up in much more detail subsequently.
Disclaim: Deny
Resources by which some prior utterance or some alternative position is invoked so as to be rejected, replaced or dismissed as irrelevant or some way communicatively inactive. From a dialogistic perspective, we can see Denial (negation) as a resource for introducing the alternative positive position into the dialog, and hence acknowledging it and engaging with it, and then rejecting it. Thus, for the speaker to assert a negative such as Shakespeare translated into Chinese isn’t ridiculous suggests that a response is being made to the counter assertion (that Shakespeare translated into Chinese would be ridiculous), while this is not the case for the positive.[2]
Disclaim: Counter
Here we are concerned with formulations which represent the current proposition as replacing and supplanting a proposition which would have been expected in its place. Consider, for example,
Amazingly, Shakespeare translated into Chinese works well.
or
Admittedly there may be a vast gulf between the Chinese and English cultures and languages, and yet Shakespeare translated into Chinese works well.
Here, the writer invokes an alternative proposition, something along the lines of ‘Shakespeare translated into Chinese would be ridiculous’, but indicates that it does not, after all, apply. The dialogism, therefore is with the alternative position (the unrealised expectation) which is replaced. (For more on the dialogistic functionality of such concessives, see Hunston 2000: 180)
Dialogistic contraction and expansion
The category of Disclaim (Deny and Counter-Expect) can be seen as maximally contractive in dialogistic terms. Here we are concerned with 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. While Deny and Counter-Expect acknowledge alternative positions within the dialogistic context, they either reject (Deny) or replace (Counter-Expect) these. There are certain clear consequences for arguability and interpersonal negotiability associated with these options. Though Deny is dialogistic to the degree that it acknowledges some alternative position, it is essentially non-negotiatory with respect to that alternative position. Through such Denial, the speaker directly confronts those who hold the opposing view, allowing no room for interpersonal manoeuvre. Counter-Expect is somewhat more negotiatory. While the speaker of the above example presents themselves as opposing the view that ‘Shakespeare translated into Chinese would be ridiculous’, they nonetheless indicate some sympathy for that position in that, through the resources of Counter-Expect, they characterise that view as ‘logical’ ‘reasonable’ or at least ‘understandable’.
Proclaim: (Concur, Pronounce and Justify)
Under “Proclaim” we deal with formulations which can be interpreted as heading off contradiction or challenge from potential dialogic respondents. They are meanings which increase the interpersonal cost of any such contradiction by adding additional support or motivation for the current proposition/proposal.
Through values of Concur, the speaker/writer represents the current proposition/proposal as uncontentious within the current speech community, as a ‘given’, as being in accord with what is generally known or expected. Thus, in “Shakespeare translated into Chinese, of course, works well” or “Predictably, Shakespeare in Chinese works well.” the writer represents himself/herself as simply agreeing with the reader, as recounting a view which is already held by the dialogic partner and by people in generally. The supposed location of the current proposition within the dialogistic exchange is thus employed to increase the cost of any subsequent challenging or rejecting of the proposition.
Under ‘Pronounce’ we are concerned with formulations by which speakers/writers interpolate themselves directly into the text as the explicitly responsible source of the utterance. This ‘pronouncement’ may take the form of an explicit interpolation of the speaker into the text (‘I contend Shakespeare in Chinese would be ridiculous.’), an intensifying comment adjunct (‘Really, Shakespeare in Chinese would be ridiculous’), stress on the auxiliary (‘Shakespeare in Chinese IS ridiculous’), or through structures such as ‘It’s a fact that…’. Such formulations are dialogistically prospective. The author thereby increases the interpersonal cost of any rejection/doubting of their utterance in future communicative exchanges, rendering such a direct challenge to the author’s dialogic position. Of course, through such a strategy, by confronting the possibility of rejection, the author integrates that possibility into the text and thereby acknowledges the dialogistic diversity of meaning making in socially diverse social contexts.
(Note that I haven’t made mention here of what is termed “Justify”, an additional option within Proclaim. For a discussion of this, see White, P.R.R. 2003. 'Beyond Modality and Hedging: a Dialogic View of the Language of Intersubjective Stance', Text - Special Edition on Appraisal 23 (3): 259–284. To download a copy, go to www.prrwhite.info )
Dialogistic contraction and expansion
I would argue that while values of Proclaim (Expect & Pronounce) are dialogistically contractive in general terms, they are somewhat less so than values of Disclaim (Deny & Counter-Expect). Under Proclamation, the speaker/writer indicates a high level of commitment to the proposition and yet by this, in an apparent paradox, 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’)[3]. The relativity or contingency of the utterance is the basis of its dialogism. To this extent, then, Proclaim, is somewhat more expansive dialogistically than Disclaim (Deny & Counter-Expect).
I believe it is also possible to argue that Pronounce (‘I contend that…’ etc) is somewhat more expansive dialogistically than Concur (‘Of course…’ etc) 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’. This difference has certain consequences for arguability and interpersonal negotiability. In order to challenge a proposal (or proposition) framed by a Concur value, the respondent is required to challenge a position represented as a given, as generally held, as consensual, while to challenge a Pronouncement, the respondent confronts, instead, the speaker/writer directly.
Entertain (Deduce, Postulate and Hearsay)
Under Entertain, I include all resources by which the current proposition/proposal is represented as just one of a range of possible propositions/proposals – the proposition/proposal is relativised. It includes,
· evidential formulations such as it seems, apparently, the evidence suggests
· forms which represent the proposition/proposal as more or less likely (including modals of probability and related forms such as I think/I suppose, as well as certain ‘rhetorical’ uses of questions),
· hearsay/quotatives such as I hear and It’s said.
Such formulations have often been classified as ‘hedges’ and have often been seen as indicating that that the speaker is uncertain or tentative. Within frameworks inspired by the concerns of formal logic, they are often interpreted by reference to notions of ‘truth-value’ – they are seen as indicating that the writer/speaker declines to commit to the truth of his/her proposition. (See, for example. Lyons 1977: 452) Such interpretations all operate within a framework by which the communicative process is seen as a form of self-expression, a process by which the speaker/writer’s primary purpose is to convey their inner thoughts and beliefs to the outer world. Thus, if a speaker frames an utterance with a formulation such as ‘it seems to me’, then this usage is seen as necessarily revealing some aspect of the speaker’s current state of mind, some condition of the knowledge or beliefs they are seeking to communicate – presumably the speaker’s uncertainty or lack of commitment to truth-value.
From a dialogistic perspective, however, we come to see such resources rather differently. We see their functionality in terms of the dialogistic negotiation which all speakers/writers undertake. By the inclusion of an ‘it seems’, a ‘probably’ or an ‘I hear’, the speaker actively represents the proposal/proposition as contingent, as located in some individual subjectivity, in some individual assessment of likelihood or of the available evidence. The utterance is thus construed as but one of a range of possible utterances, since different contingencies and different individual subjectivities may well result in different assessments of likelihood and the available evidence. Thus, by the use of values such as It seems…, probably…, I hear… to frame a proposition/proposal, the writer/speaker opens up the space for dialogistic alternation, for a potential response which in some way challenges or differs from the current utterance. In a sense, such forms acknowledge that such alternation is expected or at least possible and accordingly provide an interpersonally more favourable context for such alternation.