Language Reflection: Gloss Vs. Heterogloss

836 Words4 Pages

Besides the attitudes involved in the communication, the speaker/writer may also deploy other tools to negotiate social relations and ideological stances, one of which is engagement. Broadly speaking, engagement deals with resources such as projection, modality, polarity and concession. Via quoting, affirming, acknowledging, denying, countering and various means, the speaker/writer not only increase or decrease the credibility of his/hers words, but also invite or reject the potential responses or opinions. According to Martin (2004), propositions which don’t refer to other voices and opinions are summarized as monogloss while propositions which invite or allow alternative stances belong to the category of heterogloss. However, Wang (2001) argues that since monogloss, like heterogloss, contains the attitude and the sub/objectivity of the speaker/writer, it should also have these hedging means (e.g., I think). Therefore monogloss and heterogloss are not differentiated in the current study and the system elaborated as below is applied to both sources of voices. According to their intersubjective functionality, engagement can be divided into two broad categories, namely dialogic expansion and dialogic contraction. The distinction lays in the allowances, challenge or rejection for dialogically alternative voices and stances. Dialogic contraction closes down the space for dialogic alternatives via: 1. rejecting other positions and stances, which is realized by denying the

Open Document