Contract: Proclaim

The [contract: proclaim] option (see Figure 3.2 above) allows the textual voice to emphasize its own position or other positions it considers maximally warrantable, thus excluding alternatives from the ongoing colloquy. According to Martin and White (2005, 121), there are three main

27 _{See also Givón (2001b, 336), Hood (2010, 183–185), and Kress and Hodge (1979, 148–}

151).

28 _{The addressee may of course agree with the Premier’s implied solution, in which case,}

the textual voice disaligns itself with regard to both the addressee and the projected voice of the Premier.

options in the PROCLAIM system: [concur], [pronounce], and [endorse]. I

also include here a fourth option, [justify], based on White (2003, 2012).29

The choice of [proclaim: concur] announces the textual voice as being in agreement with or sharing the same knowledge as some projected dialogic partner (Martin and White 2005, 122). In ‘concurring’, the textual voice seeks to [affirm] or [concede] a particular point or position (see Figure 3.2). Such dialogic functionality is typically signalled by comment Adjuncts such as of course, naturally, certainly, and admittedly. For example, in (3.4)—an excerpt from the same text as (3.3)—the textual voice emphasizes and ‘affirms’ a particular position attributed to The Premier. Moreover, by choosing the comment Adjunct of course, “the textual voice actively and explicitly presents itself as aligned with the construed reader, as having the same belief or attitude or ‘knowledge’” (White 2003, 269). In (3.4), the textual voice and the addressee are construed as being united in their opposition to The Premier.

(3.4) The Premier, of course, wants us to think what a fine anti-racist fellow he is. (3.5) Sure, he broke the rules. Yes, he ducked and dived. Admittedly he was badly

behaved. But look at what he achieved.

In (3.5), from Martin and White (2005, 124), the textual voice ‘concurs’ with a projected dialogic partner, by ‘conceding’ a number of points regarding the behaviour of a particular third person, the protagonist in this excerpt, signalled by the underlined comment Adjuncts and an affirmative marker/interjection. The textual voice presents itself as being in agreement, although perhaps reluctantly so, with the construed addressee, thus reducing the dialogic space for alternative positions that might, for example, claim that “rules were not broken”. These concessions, however, are followed by a [counter] proposal, one that attempts to overturn the potentially negative view projected by the previous clauses. So-called [concede] + [counter] pairings of this kind (Martin and White 2005, 125–126) construe for the text an addressee who is likely resistant to the textual voice’s primary argumentative position, in this case a

positive view of the protagonist. The [concede] option helps to align the textual voice and the addressee. In dialogic terms, this is an important gesture of solidarity in a context in which the writer/speaker may anticipate disagreement or disalignment with the addressee.

The [proclaim: pronounce] feature allows the textual voice to add explicit, subjective emphasis to propositions that are “directed against some assumed or directly referenced counter position” (Martin and White 2005, 129). The resources available for such ‘pronouncements’ are diverse, and include the formulations I contend…, The facts of the matter are… The truth is…, You must agree that…, as well as certain comment Adjuncts such as really, indeed, and in fact. In (3.6), from Martin and White (2005, 129), two formulations serve to add authorial emphasis to the proposition that “Bush and King Fahd have a policy that entails the destruction of the Kurds and the Shiites”: I contend that… and indeed. These interpolations reduce the space for dialogic diversity, by emphasizing the warrantability or validity of the counter-proposition, thereby narrowing the scope for alternatives.30 _{They also increase the} interpersonal risk involved, by expressing a high level of personal commitment. If the ‘pronouncement’ challenges or confronts the addressee, there is a threat to solidarity, one that may need to be negotiated through the use of other dialogic resources; but if the ‘pronouncement’ confronts a third party “on behalf of the putative addressee”, the situation may be reversed, construing the textual voice and addressee as standing united against some dialogic adversary (Martin and White 2005, 130).

(3.6) There was a lot of talk during Daniel Schorr’s spot on “Weekend Edition” about George Bush’s not having a coherent postwar policy for Iraq. I contend that Bush and King Fahd do, indeed, have a policy that entails the destruction of the Kurds and the Shiites.

The [proclaim: endorse] option allows the textual voice to construe an externally sourced proposition as being “correct, valid, undeniable or

30 _{The [counter] position here is signalled by the emphatic: “they DO have a policy”. Note}

that, like the [concur: concede] feature, ‘pronouncements’ tend to occur as part of [pronounce] + [counter] pairings (see Martin and White 2005, 129).

otherwise maximally warrantable” (Martin and White 2005, 126). These ‘endorsements’ are generally signalled by a limited set of reporting or projecting verbs that typically construe, experientially, relational processes of identification or mental processes of cognition (Halliday and Matthiessen 2004, 197–248), e.g. show, prove, demonstrate, find, and point out. In the second sentence of (3.7), from Martin and White (2005, 126), the textual voice ‘endorses’ the projected proposition attributed to “five studies”, i.e. dependence is associated with greater inequality. This ‘endorsement’ construes the projected proposition as maximally warrantable, and hence restricts the dialogic space for alternative positions, aligning (or attempting to align) the addressee to the value position advanced by the textual voice (Martin and White 2005, 127).

(3.7) Five of the studies examine the effects of economic dependence on economic inequality. All five show that dependence is associated with greater inequality.

The [proclaim: justify] option presents the textual voice as arguing for or substantiating a particular position, one that may be contentious or in need of additional support (White 2003, 274–275).31 _{‘Justifications’ are}

typically signalled by connectives and conjunctions such as therefore, thus, accordingly, because, and for this reason. In (3.8), from White (2012, 65), the textual voice deems it necessary to provide ‘justification’ for the assertion that The government has betrayed the people.32 _{The textual voice}

gives an explicit reason or motivation for the proposition, signalled by the conjunction because, and in doing so ‘contracts’ the dialogic space for alternative explanations. Intersubjectively, the [justify] feature acknowledges or anticipates an addressee who may hold an alternative viewpoint and is in need of persuasion. The [justify] feature is therefore crucial in negotiating alignment, serving (at least potentially) to “win over

31 _{Note that White (2012) places [justify] at a different level of delicacy from that in the}

system network on the Appraisal website and the typology used in this thesis (see Figure 3.2). In White (2012, 65), [pronounce] and [justify] are grouped as part of a REINFORCE subsystem, at the same level of delicacy as [concur] and [endorse]. Taken together, ‘pronouncements’ and ‘justifications’ act to strengthen or ‘reinforce’ propositions against possible alternatives.

those who might be dubious or resistant” to certain claims (White 2012, 64, see also Martin 2008a, 50–51 for further discussion).33

(3.8) The government has betrayed the people because it didn’t maintain full employment.

3.1.2.2 Dialogic Expansion

The resources for dialogic ‘expansion’ can be considered in terms of two main categories: [entertain] and [attribute] (see Figure 3.2). Both features serve to ‘expand’ or open up the dialogic space for alternative propositions and positions. 3.1.2.2.1 Expand: Entertain By selecting the [expand: entertain] feature, the textual voice signals that its position, being an overtly subjective one, is but one among a number of possible alternative positions. The [entertain] feature is encoded by a wide range of lexicogrammatical resources that are variably dealt with elsewhere in the literature under the headings of modality, hedging, and evidentiality (e.g. Chafe 1986, Hyland 1996, 1998b, Halliday and Matthiessen 2004, see also White 2003). These include modal resources such as could, may, possible, and probably, and modalized projections of the kind I believe and I think (interpersonal grammatical metaphor; see Halliday and Matthiessen 2004, 613–625, and section 2.2.1.3), as well as “evidentials” such as suggest, appear, apparent, and so on (Martin and White 2005, 109). White (2003, 277) and Martin and White (2005, 110) also note that certain “rhetorical” or “expository” questions ‘entertain’ a similarly diverse dialogic background of alternative viewpoints and propositions, as do conditionals such as if-clauses (White 2003, 272–274). In (3.9), from Martin and White (2005, 110), the proposition he feels ashamed and guilty… is construed, via projection, as being subjective,

33 _{White (2003, 274–275) notes that ‘justifications’ are often not explicitly signalled, e.g.}

These [moral] panics are invariably based on questionable grounds. Either a few nasty statements or incidents are blown out of all proportion, or the definition of racism is expanded to cover a range of new sins.

based on the deductions or surmise of the textual voice. That the speaker in (3.9) chooses the verb suggests rather than, say, shows presents the proposition as being one among a number of potential alternatives, opening up or ‘expanding’ the dialogic space. A similar example of [entertain] can be seen in (3.10), from Hood (2010, 183), where, again, the position of the textual voice is construed, in this case by the modal Finite may, as being one among a number of potential alternatives.

(3.9) His defensive behaviour suggests he feels ashamed and guilty that you’ve discovered his habit.

(3.10) [T]his may be due to the potentiality that writing offers over speaking in that it is more concrete and durable

The [entertain] feature plays an important role in modelling intersubjective stance, since it recognizes and legitimizes positions or propositions that may differ from those of the textual voice. In doing so, [entertain] provides the possibility of solidarity even with those who may hold contrary views. Of course, the extent to which [entertain] functions in this way will depend on the co-text/context of the utterance and how ideologically oriented it is (Martin and White 2005, 109). In (3.11), for example, from Martin and White (2005, 109), the textual voice does not appear to be anticipating potential dissent or disagreement. Rather, it ‘entertains’ the possibility that the number given (several hundred) might be slightly higher or slightly lower, and that it should not be taken as a precise figure. According to Martin and White (2005, 109), the position is “more ‘private’ than ‘public’” and is one that “is not so obviously ideologically connected”. Nevertheless, possibly does seem to play an important role in establishing the speaker’s credibility and authority, in the way it modifies, by seemingly downscaling and thus modestly downplaying, the quantification and emphasis of the speaker’s level of experience and expertise (see Hood 2010, 185–188 on the relation between GRADUATION and ENGAGEMENT, and section 5.4).

(3.11) As a nurse with more than 50 years’ experience including 10 years caring for the terminally ill I feel it appropriate to respond. [paragraph break] It has been my privilege to have cared for possibly several hundred terminally ill patients.

In document Engagement in Medical Research Discourse: A Multisemiotic Discourse-Semantic Study of Dialogic Positioning (Page 56-62)