Multifaceted dimensions of self-reference

Links & Lerters 3, 1996 61-76 Multifaceted Dimensions of Self-reference Helena Calsamiglia Blancafort Departament de Traducció i Filologia Universitat Pompeu Fabra September 1995 Abstract Speaker and Hearer are the protagonists of the dialogic nature of language use. In this paper the way speakers present themselves in their texts is examined, taking into account not only their contextual role as purposive users but also the linguistic means available in every speech event in which they are involved. The analysis is focused on the Speaker. The diversity of possibilities of self-reference and its meaning in discourse is reviewed in the light of different approaches that try to give an answer to the problems posed by the variation found in different types of text. Key words: Enunciation Theory, Text Analysis, Deixis, Written Discourse. Table of Contents 1. Introduction 5. Conclusions 2. General frame of analysis Appendix A 3. Characterizing Speaker5 Appendix B the sociocultural point of view Referentes 4. Speaker inscription in the text: Different options 1. Introduction One of the interesting topics to explore in pragmatics is the self-representa- tion of the Speaker in texts. In fact, rnost approaches to pragrnatics and sociolinguistics underline the significance of Speaker and Hearer in language use.' The notions of Speaker and Hearer however, are not ideal theoretical constructs; they are neither neutral nor innocent. They are individuals with a del. Speaker/Hearer, WritedReader with capital letters are used throughout this paper to refer to participants in oral and written interaction, regardless of gender or number. Plural forms and slhe are used as variants to avoid sexist pronominal usage. 62 Links & Letters 3, 1996 Helena Calsamiglia Blancafort fined identity bearing attributes of their origin, sex, age, leve1 of instruction and so on, as well as their status in society and their particular role in the speech event. As ethnographers of communication point out, participants in verbal interactions play a substantial role in the construction of meaning, by defining the purpose and specificity of the act of communication. Among the possibilities available in language speakers select for every speech event the units needed to construct their own identity. In addition, a Speaker chooses how to relate to the Hearer throughout the space and time occupied by the unit of communication (Gumperz 1982). If something is crucial for the constitution of the speech act, it is the intention or purpose of the Speaker. If we consider language use in oral and written communication it is obvious that in face to face situations the context of speech triggers the use of deictics as marks of self-reference (see Turell 1988 for a sociolinguistic study of deictics in verbal interactions). On the contrary, most uses of written communication, as described in Stubbs (1980), tend to be more impersonal and planned due to the variety of audiences to whom they are addressed. It would seem that deictic marking has a minor role in written communication. For this reason, the present paper takes up the claim related to the limited use of self-reference in written texts. By examining a variety of written texts an effort is made to show the units or mechanisms speakers use to indicate their position. This position or footing (Goffman 1981) can be varied or stable throughout the text, depending on how speakers portray themselves. 2. General frarne of analysis Among the different proposals that can be found in the relationship of language with its users, the traditions based on Bühler (1934), Benveniste (1966, 1974), Jakobson (1963) and speech act theory can provide the background for ~nderstandin~ the possibilities of self-reference available in discourse. Bühler is an inevitable source in order to start talking about the mostrative field of referen~e.~ For him the Speaker is the deictic center. To make referentes to the mostrative field of the Speaker, linguistic codes have special items, mainly pronouns (personal, adverbial, demonstratives and possessives) which form grammatical paradigms. Every time that one of these items appears in a text it functions as a cue to be interpreted in context. In the seventies, Émile Benveniste further elaborates on the notion of deictic space just when the theory of speech acts was being extended and discussed. He formulates a model called l'appareilformel de l'énonciation (the formal frame of enunciation) where he discusses the way speakers enact or implement elements of the language system each time they start an enunciation process in order to produce an énoncé (the result of the act of enunciation). The act 2. Mostrativefield refers, according to Bühler, to the space of reference which is accomplished by deictics (linguistic units that refer to referents in the context), as opposed to the representativefieldthat refers to the space of reference accomplished by lexical units. Multifaceted Dimensions of Self-reference Links & Letters 3, 1996 63 of enunciation has a frame which is implemented by personal and spaceltime indices. Benveniste makes a radical distinction between person indices (first and second person markers which encode the Speaker and Hearer) and nonperson indices (third person markers). This dichotomy leads him to consider person indices as properties of oral discourse, associated with face to face communication, and non-person indices as features of storylnarration, associated with ways of representing facts about the world. In spite of the radical separation of these two worlds, which has been discussed, among others, by Kerbrat- Orecchioni (1986), the distinction has been valuable to differentiate the functions of third person personal pronouns for codieing the universe of referente not related to SpeakerIHearer. Jakobson (1963) also insists on the value of personal deictics, not just as indices void of referential meaning, but as symbol/indices that share a representational and a signaling value. These linguistic elements are used by participants in interactions to build and present their identity and their relationship to each other. FinaUy, the theory of speech acts as formulated by Austin and Searle accounts for what speakers add to the construction of meaning. Traditional philosophical studies on meaning were concerned with propositional content and truth conditions, but the contributions starting with Wittgenstein and followed up by Austin and Searle centered on other dimensions of the speech act. These dimensions play an important role in the construction of other kinds of meaning, mainly interpersonal meaning, which includes the Speaker's intention and the intended effect on the Hearer; in other words, the illocutiona ryforce and the perlocutionary effect, main axes of the speech act which determine the sense of the énoncé. Al1 these theoretical proposals pose the question of how to characterize the Speaker, the relationship created with the Hearer, and the consequences a Speaker's choices have on the interaction and the resulting text. This paper addresses the way speakers construct a text through choices that express their relationship to the text, their image of the Hearer ;LS well as the relationship they want to maintain with their interlocutor. In that sense we adopt the perspective of Gumperz and others (Duranti and Goodwin 1992) that context -and the position of interlocutors as a part of itis created in the process of communication. In contrast with oral discourse, where contextualization is based on verbal and non-verbal cues, written discourse has cues that are based on the occurrence or non-occurrence of linguistic units in a linearized space. Due to the different situation of enunciation of oral and written communication (Calsamiglia 1991), these linguistic units form the micro textual3 components of global macro text features embedded in a variety of graphic formats. 3. In text linguistics there are two levels of analysis: that of sentence -the components and relationships, traditional object of grammarconstitutes the micro textual level. That of the global structure of text such as topic and organization (macro structure and super strurture (van Dijk: 1978) constitutes the macro textual level. 64 Link. & ktters 3, 1996 Helena Calsamiglia Blancafort 3. Characteri~in~ Speakers the sociocultural point of view Having posed the problem of how to characterize the Speaker, 1 would like to point out the need for an interdisciplinary approach which Discourse Analysis provides for rhe description of speakers and their context. The model of ethnography of communication indicates that the sociocultural profile of participants in a speech event is crucial to describe it as a part of the communicative culture of a community. Social psychology talks about the authority and credibility of speakers which serves to legitimize their communicative behavior on every occasion. Focusing on the interaction between Speaker and Hearer, the presentation of selfand fdce management in the socialscene (Goffman 1959, 1967, 1971) provides the background to understand the politenessprinciples (Leech 1983, Brown and Levinson 1987). Interaction is regulated by the cooperativeprinciple which governs conversational maxims (Grice 1975), and the politenessprinciple which governs the maxims or different ways of preserving the positive and the negativefdce of the interactants, that is to say, preserving oneS positive image and securing one's space of action. The parameters of power and solidarity (Brown and Gilman 1960) have an interesting application also to the relationship established between Speaker and Hearer, especially because they are related to the use of first and second person pronouns in social deixis (Levinson 1983). These proposals contribute to our understanding of how social, cultural and interpersonal factors condition and influence the linguistic choices that are made by the Speaker in every instance of communication. In this sense, Halliday, from a funcrionalist approach to grammar, considers that the interpersonalfinction of language can be described through the situational notion of tenor, which along with the notion ofjekdand mode, constitute the pattern for register as a characteristic of linguistic variation in texts4 4. Speaker inscription in the text: Different options In this section we will explore the way the Speaker as an enunciator can be expressed in a variety of texts written in Spanish. Following up what was said in section two, written texts are units of communication that differ from face to face interaction in that communication is not direct but delayed in space and time; and also, a text can be considered a monologue, or a turn managed by only one participant who constructs the text as a coherent unity withour the contribution of another interlocutor. If we consider the linguistic items 4. M.A.K. Halliday is responsible for the elaboration of these notions. Register refers to the linguistic particularities exhibited in and throughout a text, which make it different from other texts and identifiable as a kind of text for a particular purpose. As there are other types of variation (genre, style) register is a notion that is based on situational characteristics formulated by Halliday asjeld, tenor and modc jeldrefers to the topic in relation to a sphere of social activity; tenor refers to the relationship of the interactants and to their purposes; moáe refers to the modality of language transmission (orallwritten, type of formats, and so on). Multifaceted Dimensions of Self-reference Links & Letters 3, 1996 65 that a Speaker uses to accomplish personal reference we can distinguish nominal reference (noun phrases) and deictic reference. Both types of reference will function in the text as instructions to be interpreted by the Reader. Our claim is that the Writer has different options, which are not restricted to the deictic 1E5 These different options are related a) to the intention of the Writer and the effects slhe wants to create in the Reader, and b) to the facesometimes different faces -that slhe wants to show throughout the text. This is why we claim that thepresentation of the selfhas a multifaceted appearance. One of the options that speakers have is not to show their presence in the text. In order to represent a state of the affairs in the world of reference, 3P is used. In Spanish, the deictic reference is present on the agreement features of the verb. (1) A gran profundidad por debajo de las nubes de Júpiter el peso de las capas superiores de la atmósfera produce presiones muy superiores a las existentes en la Tierra (. . .). Deep under the clouds ofJupiter the weight of the upper layer of the atmosphereproduces a much greaterpressure than that existing on earth (. . .). (Excerpt from a science book aimed for a wide public. C. Sagan. 1982. Cosmos. Barcelona: Planeta.) (2) Languidecía el bar de la Opera, a la espera de los calores que harían brotar parasoles y mesas sobre los suelos del paseo. The bar of the Opera was quiet, waitingfor the wam weather which would makeparasols and tables burgeon on the sidewalks of the boulevard. (Excerpt from a novel. M. Vázquez Montalbán. 1985. Elpianista. Barcelona: Seix Barral.) (3) El Sistema de Dictado Personal es un mecanismo de reconocimiento de voz, que, instalado en un ordenador personal, convierte en texto escrito cualquier discurso hablado. The Personal Dictation System is a mechanism of voice recognition, that converts any spoken discourse into written text once it has been installed in a personal computer. (Excerpt from a sales promotion letter from a computer firm) (4) EN LA VIDA SE APRENDE A BASE DE GOLPES. Cuando lo importante es construir vehículos más seguros no importa lo duro que sea el esfuerzo. IN LIFE ONE LEARNS THE HARD WAY: When the important thing is to build more secure cars it does not rnatter how hard one tries. (Excerpt from an advertisement on security in cars) 5. 1 use lP, 2P, 3P to indicate first, second and third person singular deictics. When these deictics are plural, an additional P is added (e.g., 1PP). 66 Links & Letters 3, 1996 Helena Calsamiglia Blancafort These four examples are instances of different types of texts where we can observe the selection of 3P by speakers in order to disguise their presence. The focus of these texts is the information they convey. The effects these choices have on the reader are ones of universal importance and impartiality (even if it is not an objective interpretation of reality). The Speaker chooses not to appear in the text and this is achieved by focusing the reader's attention on the referential content. An objective effect is also created by the absence of subjective markers (i.e., personal first person deictics) which confers a greater degree of universal credibility to the message. Another option speakers have is to introduce themselves explicitly in the text. The introduction of the enunciator has a standard form of expression, generated in speech through lI? In Spanish, the enunciator expresses himself with morphological agreement features of 1P on the verb as opposed to English or French which require lexically overt pronouns. (5) No he querido decir nada (I) Didn 't mean to say anything The choice of 1 P pronoun in Spanish is a marked use that creates effects of emphasis or intensification in order to express distinction or contraposition, uniqueness, emotion, involvement or personalization. (6) Yo no se lo he dicho 1 didn 't tell him a thing These effects are possible with al1 kind of verbs and especially with verbs of opinion and knowledge which promote the marked realization of the pronouns, according to Fernández Ramírez (1987: 74). Spanish, as many other lan uages, maintain Latin case-marking for subject YO (1) and object ME, M k (me) personal pronouns. Since objects do not agree with the verbs they are realized in the text wherever they are needed. In the linguistic context (cotext), the use of 1P triggers the use of possessives, demonstratives or adverbials which serve to relate anaphorically the objects of the reference world to the Speaker. In sum, the occurrence of 1P is a direct presentation of the SpeakerIWriter and implies a high degree of subjectivization. At the same time, the appearance of 1P generates the image of an addressee with whom the speaker creates a relationship of proximity and familiarity. At this point it is relevant to ask whether the Speaker, in al1 circumstances, chooses to use the standard 1P grammatical form or there are other options available to introduce oneself in the text. In situations where Speaker and Hearer share knowledge of the world and have a close relationship the risk of a face threatening act is absent or diminished and so the overt use of 1P is appropriate and effective. But sometimes even in this situation the use of 1 P can be felt as too aggressive or too compromising. Speakers may want to show themselves as members of a particular social group and generalize their exper- Multifaceted Dimensions of Self-reference Links & Letters 3, 1996 67 ience by indicating that they share it with others. With the 3P pronouns UNOIA (one) or the 2P Tú, TE, TI (you) the Speaker evades individual responsibility and adheres to a group. Examples (7)-(9) exemplify the variety of ways a Speaker decides to appear in a text. The writer is a woman who shows discomfort in a particular situation (7) Me siento incómoda en estas circunstancias Ido not feel comfortable in this situation (8) Te sientes incómoda en estas circunstancias You do notfeel comfortable in this situation (9) Una se siente incómoda en estas circunstancias One does notfeel comfortable in this situation In (7) the Speaker personalizes her own experience. In (8) she shows, with the use of 2e a generalization involving both herself and the Hearer. In fact she distances herself as a Speaker in order to identify with the addressee and she presents herself as an instance of what is accepted by the Hearer and by others. In (9) the Speaker adopts 3P to express accepted common experience, avoiding personalization she is still present (through gender agreement features una) even though she has included herself in the world of reference. Al1 these examples can be found in informal contexts. When used in other contexts they acquire an expressive function of familiarity and proximity. Thus, we find that the use of the three persons for agreement in singular are suitable for presenting the self in the text and the actual choice of one form over another will depend on the intentions and the effects to be created. In public communication, speakers usually represent their social role and identify their status. Discourse strategies are used to characterize the speakers identity, their status and the role played in a particular situation. The distance between an informal self (spontaneous, relaxed) and a social self is marked by the use of 1 P plural (1 PP). This 1PP can have different values, related to the hierarchical position of the Speaker in a continuum that goes from authority-oriented to solidarity-oriented position. These values are distributed as follows: (a) Maximum Authority. Historically the use of IPP for a singular high dignitary of the Church or the Monarchy has been a way to mark power and authority. Nowadays, this use has in some cases extended to other civil powers, whose representatives use the same strategy to convey the meaning of high hierarchy position. So the Pope or the Queen use NOS, NOSOTROS (we) as an alternate for YO (1), traditionally called the roya1 we. (1 0) El pasado miércoles quedé sorprendido cuando escuché al presidente de X utilizar el plural mayestático cuando explicó su opinión sobre el nuevo director general de la XXX. Como si de un monarca absoluto se tratara, 68 Links & Letters 3, 1996 Helena Calsamiglia Blancafort X rechazó las críticas y se limitó a decir Le conocemos bien y tenemosgrdn con$anza en él. Last Wednesday I was surprised when I heard the president of X using the «roya1 we» when he gave bis opinion about the new political appointee to the XXX As ifhe were an absolute monarch , he refited al1 criticisms and replied « We know him well and we trust him». (Excerpt from the Spanish daily press) (b) Shared authority. Other uses of NOSOTROS (we) appear in texts where speakers include themselves as members of a group which gives them authority to speak about specific topics related to the activities of the group (scientific community, politics, companies, associations, family, and others). The use of 1P marker could mean risking one's credibility or taking on too much personal responsibility. Group representation with the use of 1PP adds prestige and support value, and attenuates individual responsibility. Thus, the Speaker takes refuge in a research group, in the reliability of a company, in a political party, or in the family nest. Traditionally, this has been explained as the modesty we. Our interpretation is not so much one of modesty as of reinforcement of authority and mitigation of individual responsibility towards what is said. (1 1) Es falso que yo sea el señor x y vamos a querellarnos contra quien lo afirme It is not true that 1 am Mr. X and we are going to sue anyone who claims this (Excerpt from an interview with the President of the Spanish government facing accusations of corruption) (12) No podemos los demócratas dar credibilidad a lo que digan dos condenados We, democrats, can notgive credit to what two convictedpeople say (Excerpt from an interview with the President of the Spanish government facing accusations of corruption) In example (1 1) we can observe variation in self-reference. In the first position in bold we find 1c self-reference of the President as an individual. In the second position in bold the same speaker makes his own reference as a mennber of a political group with the 1PP form. In example (12), the same speaker specifies to which group he is now adhering (e.g., to the group of dennocrats). Throughout the interview the President uses different ways of referring to himself. By using different kind of deictics he shows different faces of himself, as a member of different groups that give him value and serve to reinforce his position as well as his prestige. (c) Solidarity. In connection with the previous section the use of 1PP can be interpreted as a way of expressing solidarity with a group, in which the Multifaceted Dimensions of Self-reference Link. & Lerrers 3, 1996 69 Hearer is not included. But it can be interpreted as a means of creating solidarity with the Hearer in order to promote an effect of persuasion. (13) Ahora que hemos revisado los principales tipos de.. .(. . .) vamos a considerar.. . (. . .). Now that we haue reuiewed the main types oJ. . (. . .) we are going to discuss. . . (. . .). (Excerpt from a text book) This example shows that the writer appears represented by IPP to establish solidarity ties with the reader, indicating that both share an action or a discourse process. The other option speakers have is to present themselves through nominal reference. Nominal reference serves as a distancing device which objectivizes the Speaker. This is accomplished by 3P agreement features. In texts written for a wide public the use of proper names (for person or organization) are ways to present the identity of the Speaker accompanied by a reference to the status, profession, or something socially relevant. Specific noun phrases are also used for self-reference as illustrated in (14)-(17). (14) Un servidor siempre está dispuesto a participar Muggins here is always ready to participate (1 5) RENFE organiza un concurso de redacción sobre viajes en tren RENFE organizes a contestfor stories written about train trips (16) SEAT propone a sus clientes que cambien a gasolina sin plomo SEATsuggests to their clients to switch to unleadedgas (17) En el tribunal que juzgó la tesis figuraban, entre otros, el catedrático G.O., RS., también catedrático, y el autor de estas líneas, o el cronista, o éste que lo es, o una servidora, o como caray se diga yo en dialecto periodístico. -. Among the members of the committee who eualuated the thesis were G. O., a fillprofersor, R.S., also a fillprofessor, and the author of these lines, or this journalist, or yours truly, or myse6 or howeuer hellyou say 1 in journalistic jargon. (Excerpt from a newspaper commentary) In al1 the examples the source of the text is mentioned as part of the world of reference, with proper names or descriptive noun phrases that agree with 3P verb forms. In (14) a traditional polite formulaic use of a noun mitigates the prominent position of the deictic 1P when used among people that do not know each other. In (15) and (16) the Speaker (an organization) is presented with the proper name formed by an acronym. In (17) the writer comments ironically on the possibilities of self-reference in written media. Up to now we have been describing the different options that speakers have to show their 76 Links & Letters 3, 1996 Helena Calsamiglia Blancafort JAKOBSON, R. (1 975). Ensayos de lingüística general I. Barcelona: Seix Barral. KERBRAT-ORECCHIONI, C. (1986). La enunciación. De la subjetividad en el lenguaje. Buenos Aires: Hachette. KERBRAT ORECCHIONI, C. (1989). aThéorie des faces et analyse convers?tionelle». Castel, R. et al. LepavlerJTais d'Ewing Gofian, p. 155-179. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit. LEECH, G.N. (1983). Principies ofprapatics. London: Longman. LEVINSON, S.C. (1989). Pragmática. Barcelona: Teide. STUBBS, M. (1 980). Language and literav. The sociolinguistics of reading and writing. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. TURELL, M.T. (1988). «Self-reference in Spanish and Catalan discourse)). In Staczeck, J. J. (ed.) On Spanish, Portuguese, and Catalan linguistics, p. 1 99-2 10. Washington: Georgetown University Press.